|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other.
If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all.
|
On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all.
Why are you presuming either of these?
|
On December 06 2013 08:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. Why are you presuming either of these?
If neither of those are the case, and the government isn't subsidizing wages, then the only other possibility is that people who are working at Walmart and receiving public assistance are actually all well-off enough that they don't need it.
|
On December 06 2013 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. Why are you presuming either of these? If neither of those are the case, and the government isn't subsidizing wages, then the only other possibility is that people who are working at Walmart and receiving public assistance are actually all well-off enough that they don't need it.
Isn't that the obvious (and simplest) answer? Sure, "need" is a funny term here, but the point would be that Walmart's wages are high enough to where people would still work there absent public assistance. Accordingly, there would be no relationship between the public assistance and the wages that Walmart pays. Under such a regime, increases in the wages that Walmart pays would result in some combination of price increases passed on to customers and the cutting of jobs.
|
On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all.
What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage?
|
What I / the article is saying is that there is, in a sense, an artificial minimum wage that is being imposed by having these transfer payments in place. Since we allow Walmart to pay people such a low wage that they are still on public assistance even after having a full-time job, we are effectively saying that the difference between the actual minimum wage, and the artificial minimum wage, is going to be picked up by tax payers. Therefore, the logical thing to do is either; eliminate the transfer payments, or, increase the minimum wage so that either way these people are no longer on welfare once they are employed full time. I guess you could say that the government is creating a price floor for the price of labor that is higher than the actual price floor that is imposed by the minimum wage.
A price floor in theory reduces the demand for labor, creating unemployment, because Walmart has fewer dollars to spend employing people. But here we have created a price floor, but not actually subjected Walmart to it. By creating a price floor that is artificially higher than the price floor Walmart has to pay, we are essentially spending tax dollars to create higher unemployment, and the only winning party here is Walmart; the losers are the tax payers.
They should either raise the price floor so that the proper parties are paying the bill (corporations) or eliminate it and let wages reach equilibrium.
|
On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage?
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but his argument necessarily would have to be that people would stop working.
|
On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage?
Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures).
|
You know what happened when Walmart tried to go more upscale, selling higher-priced better quality goods? The initiative failed. Walmart had priced itself out its own employees' price range. CEOs aren't buying shit at Walmart. The families sitting at around median income and below buy shit at Walmart. I honestly don't understand who you people think is going to buy Walmart's goods if there weren't government subsidies to Walmart employees. Just because people are willing to work for $4 doesn't mean that Walmart isn't shooting itself in the foot if it decides to pay its employees $4/hr. It's really puzzling to me where you people think these government redistributions are going, if not to places like Walmart, McDonalds, landlords, etc.
On December 06 2013 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
It'll be kinda sweet when jacking up the minimum wage results in companies replacing all of those minimum wage workers with various kinds of automatons. I'm a huge of fan of being able to self-checkout at the grocery store as opposed fucking around in checkout lines.
The real irony there is that you don't seem to realize that when that happens, welfare will have to be increased, otherwise there will be revolution.
The time when British tory workers kept pictures of the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, and red staters kept up pictures of Ronald Reagan is quickly fading. People have been voting against their own interests for the last couple decades, but it can't go on forever. The red line happens when the middle class completely disappears and it becomes nigh impossible for the majority of people in the US and Europe to find a living wage.
|
On December 06 2013 10:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
It'll be kinda sweet when jacking up the minimum wage results in companies replacing all of those minimum wage workers with various kinds of automatons. I'm a huge of fan of being able to self-checkout at the grocery store as opposed fucking around in checkout lines. The real irony there is that you don't seem to realize that when that happens, welfare will have to be increased, otherwise there will be revolution. The time when British tory workers kept pictures of the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, and red staters kept up pictures of Ronald Reagan is quickly fading. People have been voting against their own interests for the last couple decades, but it can't go on forever. The red line happens when the middle class completely disappears and it becomes nigh impossible for the majority of people in the US and Europe to find a living wage.
Oh, don't worry. That point wasn't lost on me. I was just pointing out the more immediate reason regarding why raising the minimum wage is stupid. You're pointing out the longer term reason.
|
On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures).
People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work.
|
On December 06 2013 10:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:01 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2013 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
It'll be kinda sweet when jacking up the minimum wage results in companies replacing all of those minimum wage workers with various kinds of automatons. I'm a huge of fan of being able to self-checkout at the grocery store as opposed fucking around in checkout lines. The real irony there is that you don't seem to realize that when that happens, welfare will have to be increased, otherwise there will be revolution. The time when British tory workers kept pictures of the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, and red staters kept up pictures of Ronald Reagan is quickly fading. People have been voting against their own interests for the last couple decades, but it can't go on forever. The red line happens when the middle class completely disappears and it becomes nigh impossible for the majority of people in the US and Europe to find a living wage. Oh, don't worry. That point wasn't lost on me. I was just pointing out the more immediate reason regarding why raising the minimum wage is stupid. You're pointing out the longer term reason.
That's practically a tacit admission of how broken capitalism is.
|
On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work.
The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people.
|
On December 06 2013 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2013 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
It'll be kinda sweet when jacking up the minimum wage results in companies replacing all of those minimum wage workers with various kinds of automatons. I'm a huge of fan of being able to self-checkout at the grocery store as opposed fucking around in checkout lines. The real irony there is that you don't seem to realize that when that happens, welfare will have to be increased, otherwise there will be revolution. The time when British tory workers kept pictures of the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, and red staters kept up pictures of Ronald Reagan is quickly fading. People have been voting against their own interests for the last couple decades, but it can't go on forever. The red line happens when the middle class completely disappears and it becomes nigh impossible for the majority of people in the US and Europe to find a living wage. Oh, don't worry. That point wasn't lost on me. I was just pointing out the more immediate reason regarding why raising the minimum wage is stupid. You're pointing out the longer term reason. That's practically a tacit admission of how broken capitalism is.
Nobody since the 2008 crisis has pretended that capitalism is the ideal system, particularly not the way it is practiced in the United States. The struggle is to replace it with something better.
Japanese style is much more stable but it is also very risk averse and requires something that is too close to crony capitalism for Western tastes.
Scandinavian style is also very stable and very equitable, but it requires a cultural shift that isn't really compatible with American tastes. Americans are too fearful of such large government and socialist practices.
Chinese style is very high growth and much stronger checks on big business by the government, but let's face it, nobody wants China's social problems or its human rights record.
We're not copying other OECD countries. Canada's economy is too resource-oriented, Britain's and the eurozone's have too many problems similar to the US, and Korea's is too new.
|
On December 06 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:
Walmart doesn't really give a shit about what its employees earn from sources other than Walmart. It only cares about its bottom line: what Walmart has to pay its employees in both wages and benefits. As such, it's only going to pay whatever it has to in order to fill its labor needs. Whether that's enough for someone to live on is irrelevant to Walmart. So the issue is whether the employees will work for Walmart at minimum wage without the existence of government subsidies. I tend to think that the answer is yes.
stop thinking about what individual actors in the system are thinking or doing, and start thinking about how the system works
if there weren't those government subsidies, the minimum wage would have to be higher in order to arrive at the value of labor power. basically those government subsidies are a way to allow the corporations to pay wages which are below the value of labor power in the society - the value of labor power is determined by the state of class struggle, it's just that in this case the class struggle has been carried out against the welfare-state apparatus instead of against the employers (to the benefit of the employers)
|
On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures).
OK, I think I get what you are saying.
The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer.
Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well.
|
On December 06 2013 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). OK, I think I get what you are saying. The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer. Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well.
Ironically the least messy way would be a simple guaranteed minimum income that was properly progressive so as not to provide any disincentives to earn any more money. That's precisely what Milton Friedman advocated.
|
On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people.
Why would the number of jobs not increase?
|
On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase?
because there's nothing left to do that's worth hiring americans to do
|
On December 06 2013 10:47 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase? because there's nothing left to do that's worth hiring americans to do
Except for the 150 million or so people that are working, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
