|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 09 2021 05:56 BlueBird. wrote:
The idea that the business incurs risk when buying a piece of equipment is pretty silly. When we buy brand new GC, XRF, etc we can sell it used for a portion of it and the companies that make them will come make sure they are operating. They come with extensive warranties and service.
Working for someone especially in at will state incurs a lot of risk. Let’s say I moved to get a new analyst position by someone that bought that instrument. Am I not incurring risk? Should I not share in profits if it’s successful? If I get laid off and instrument sold business owner is out a portion of their money but now I’m out a job and in an unknown city. Who took the bigger risk ?
They are still putting the money down, they should still get the majority of the profits. If your skills with specific technology is there, you have bargaining power over your wages and salary. If you feel that you aren't receiving your fair share, or that your employer is being greedy and taking significantly more than they deserve, then you should take your skills elsewhere and test the job market.
And it is important to note that with minimum wage, you are typically talking about unskilled labor. Most people do not go to an unknown city for a job paying minimum wage, and, unless jobs become so scarce as a result of minimum wage increases (for example, if a rural economy completely crashes because it is unsustainable and therefore the people have to move for work) finding a job is fairly easy.
The fact of the matter is that, typically speaking, minimum wage employees do not need specialized skills to operate equipment, and do not pay into purchasing new equipment, so the idea that minimum wage should scale with inflation AND production to the tune of $24 an hour sounds a little far fetched to me, even if the production does increase.
In the case of a analyst with regards to the minimum wage argument, yes he is incurring a risk by attempting to move to an unknown city. However, my argument against that is that the risk is the same, if not greater (again due to increases in cost of goods), today than it would be with a minimum wage increase, therefore the argument is moot.
|
On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level.
I personally would have been fine with Manchin's offer, but I know a lot of progressives hated it (he cut off the raises after stepping to around 11$/hr? I think, but it matched the first few steps of the 15$/hr proposal).
When 15$/hr first was proposed, it was definitely too high. That's becoming less the case nowadays, as it has taken so long to raise it. By the time it is passed, it will almost certainly be a perfectly reasonable amount (15$/hr in 2025 wasn't far off).
There are a few states where 15$/hr is too high and would have negative economic impacts. They are very few and far between. That's not "below average", that's "way below average" and the number economists threw around back in 2016 was closer to 12$/hr as ideal, which would STILL have been too high for WV and similar states.
The issue is that WV is a hellhole with 0 economic opportunity for anyone not born as a coal baron. The need for miners has plummeted due to automation, and demand for coal is dropping. The state has essentially nothing else besides tourism (it is VERY pretty). I feel it is better to bundle on a bunch of federal jobs programs for WV and other states than it is to just... leave the minimum wage as is. As in, utilitarian wise, I feel like the benefit from leaving wages low for a handful of states is outweighed by the economic harm it causes. It's also easier to offset hardships in WV than it is to offset the extremely low minimum wage via policy.
|
On March 09 2021 06:34 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. I personally would have been fine with Manchin's offer, but I know a lot of progressives hated it (he cut off the raises after stepping to around 11$/hr? I think, but it matched the first few steps of the 15$/hr proposal). When 15$/hr first was proposed, it was definitely too high. That's becoming less the case nowadays, as it has taken so long to raise it. By the time it is passed, it will almost certainly be a perfectly reasonable amount (15$/hr in 2025 wasn't far off). There are a few states where 15$/hr is too high and would have negative economic impacts. They are very few and far between. That's not "below average", that's "way below average" and the number economists threw around back in 2016 was closer to 12$/hr as ideal, which would STILL have been too high for WV and similar states. The issue is that WV is a hellhole with 0 economic opportunity for anyone not born as a coal baron. The need for miners has plummeted due to automation, and demand for coal is dropping. The state has essentially nothing else besides tourism (it is VERY pretty). I feel it is better to bundle on a bunch of federal jobs programs for WV and other states than it is to just... leave the minimum wage as is. As in, utilitarian wise, I feel like the benefit from leaving wages low for a handful of states is outweighed by the economic harm it causes. It's also easier to offset hardships in WV than it is to offset the extremely low minimum wage via policy.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. Again, ideally in a federalist system the more local governments can regulate things like minimum wage, so that states that can't handle a higher minimum wage doesn't have to have one. If the issue is the states or local governments blocking any legislating raising this, I think the solution should be to campaign against those officials, not try to damage the rest of the country's economy on some misguided idea of morality or justice.
If the issue is that the minimum wage currently set is too low, I am inclined to agree, and that minimum wage should at least take into consideration rising costs of living. I just think that over doubling it over the course of 4 years is reckless. For perspective, according to this website dqydj.com, a $31,000 annual income (which is what a full time, $15/hr wage provides) put you in the 23rd percentile of indvidual income earned. That means you are directly affecting almost 1/4 of workforce wages, and indirectly affecting many more from skilled laborers who will demand more as compensation. Not to mention the amount that the cost of production will increase, jobs that will be displaced, and companies that will turn to either automation or outright leave instead.
And I really would like to know which areas of the country the proponents of a $15 or higher minimum wage is intended to help, when you factor in consequences as well.
|
On March 09 2021 05:45 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. Let's just take an example for the sake of it. Where is $15/hr by 2025 too much compensation for what work? Anywhere where $15 + costs to run a business exceed the amount being brought in by the average employee? Again, mainly rural counties and smaller towns do not require a $15 minimum wage. I think a lot of people approach the topic of minimum wage going based off their own experiences. If you live in a major city, especially one with a high cost of living, it is hard to imagine a place which doesn't require as much to live. Livable wages vary greatly between counties and cities, and the solution is not to artifically skew wages across the board to the higher cost of living places.
A minimum wage protects against predatory business practices and business owner incompetence. Based on what you are saying, there shouldn't even be a minimum wage. By your logic, if a shitty small business owner determines the only way their business stays afloat is if they pay someone $5/hour, how can we separate that from the same situation where many businesses are able to pay $15/hr minimum wage while others can't? What accountability do the business owners have? From what you have described, we basically assume the business owner is never incompetent or shitty, since the wage should just be based on when the company is profitable.
A very, very key part of this conversation is recognizing many small business owners are profoundly bad at what they do.
|
On March 09 2021 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 05:45 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. Let's just take an example for the sake of it. Where is $15/hr by 2025 too much compensation for what work? Anywhere where $15 + costs to run a business exceed the amount being brought in by the average employee? Again, mainly rural counties and smaller towns do not require a $15 minimum wage. I think a lot of people approach the topic of minimum wage going based off their own experiences. If you live in a major city, especially one with a high cost of living, it is hard to imagine a place which doesn't require as much to live. Livable wages vary greatly between counties and cities, and the solution is not to artifically skew wages across the board to the higher cost of living places. A minimum wage protects against predatory business practices and business owner incompetence. Based on what you are saying, there shouldn't even be a minimum wage. By your logic, if a shitty small business owner determines the only way their business stays afloat is if they pay someone $5/hour, how can we separate that from the same situation where many businesses are able to pay $15/hr minimum wage while others can't? What accountability do the business owners have? From what you have described, we basically assume the business owner is never incompetent or shitty, since the wage should just be based on when the company is profitable. A very, very key part of this conversation is recognizing many small business owners are profoundly bad at what they do.
I'm in favor of minimum wage only as it relates to being an entry level position meant to hire people on to acquire introductory skills. I'm not sold on requiring minimum wage to be a livable wage, necessarily. I think especially with how the population ballooned over the last couple centuries, predatory practices are not necessarily alleviated by basic supply vs.demand principles in the workplace. For example, a lot of fast food chains have a near endless supply of unskilled workers to go through in densely populated areas. However, I do think that in less-densely populated areas such as rural communities and small towns, a strict minimum wage does not need to be as heavily enforced because the individual worker has more bargaining power by virtue of less competition. Hence why I believe local governments are better equipped to handle minimum wage laws.
To your point, there are very terrible business owners, that is a fact. I never argued that there wasn't. In the situation you mentioned, the employee that works for $5 is working against his own best interest if there is a business that has the same entry level requirements that pays 3x as much. The key here is the employee has some agency as to where he goes in this situation.
That business that you mentioned is not operating in a vaccuum, there is competition around it that influences the minimum they would hypothetically have to pay, and conversely the company paying $15 an hour is similarly affecting the market, so I would expect like business in the area to have to raise their wages or bleed employees., and probably end up not staying afloat for very long.
The thing is, while everyone operates in their own best interest and to maximize the amount of money they take in, business owners also have to cope with competitive wages and making sure their employees are satisfied. I'm sure everyone here would love to believe that their boss is sitting on a pile of cash and hoarding it from their employees, but usually that is not the case. And I would argue if they are in that successful of a market and not paying employees appropriately, that is an argument of competition not minimum wage law.
|
On March 09 2021 08:20 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On March 09 2021 05:45 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. Let's just take an example for the sake of it. Where is $15/hr by 2025 too much compensation for what work? Anywhere where $15 + costs to run a business exceed the amount being brought in by the average employee? Again, mainly rural counties and smaller towns do not require a $15 minimum wage. I think a lot of people approach the topic of minimum wage going based off their own experiences. If you live in a major city, especially one with a high cost of living, it is hard to imagine a place which doesn't require as much to live. Livable wages vary greatly between counties and cities, and the solution is not to artifically skew wages across the board to the higher cost of living places. A minimum wage protects against predatory business practices and business owner incompetence. Based on what you are saying, there shouldn't even be a minimum wage. By your logic, if a shitty small business owner determines the only way their business stays afloat is if they pay someone $5/hour, how can we separate that from the same situation where many businesses are able to pay $15/hr minimum wage while others can't? What accountability do the business owners have? From what you have described, we basically assume the business owner is never incompetent or shitty, since the wage should just be based on when the company is profitable. A very, very key part of this conversation is recognizing many small business owners are profoundly bad at what they do. I'm in favor of minimum wage only as it relates to being an entry level position meant to hire people on to acquire introductory skills. I'm not sold on requiring minimum wage to be a livable wage, necessarily. I think especially with how the population ballooned over the last couple centuries, predatory practices are not necessarily alleviated by basic supply vs.demand principles in the workplace. For example, a lot of fast food chains have a near endless supply of unskilled workers to go through in densely populated areas. However, I do think that in less-densely populated areas such as rural communities and small towns, a strict minimum wage does not need to be as heavily enforced because the individual worker has more bargaining power by virtue of less competition. Hence why I believe local governments are better equipped to handle minimum wage laws. To your point, there are very terrible business owners, that is a fact. I never argued that there wasn't. In the situation you mentioned, the employee that works for $5 is working against his own best interest if there is a business that has the same entry level requirements that pays 3x as much. The key here is the employee has some agency as to where he goes in this situation. That business that you mentioned is not operating in a vaccuum, there is competition around it that influences the minimum they would hypothetically have to pay, and conversely the company paying $15 an hour is similarly affecting the market, so I would expect like business in the area to have to raise their wages or bleed employees., and probably end up not staying afloat for very long. The thing is, while everyone operates in their own best interest and to maximize the amount of money they take in, business owners also have to cope with competitive wages and making sure their employees are satisfied. I'm sure everyone here would love to believe that their boss is sitting on a pile of cash and hoarding it from their employees, but usually that is not the case. And I would argue if they are in that successful of a market and not paying employees appropriately, that is an argument of competition not minimum wage law.
In the situation you mentioned, the employee that works for $5 is working against his own best interest if there is a business that has the same entry level requirements that pays 3x as much. The key here is the employee has some agency as to where he goes in this situation.
And here we have the entirety of the past administration and the most recent election. But those people should be listened to and their grievances heard. So what's the compromise? Sacrifice the many for the few.
|
Doubling the minimum wage across 5 years sounds a lot less crazy when you realize that it's not changed in the past 12... so it would be better phrased as doubling it across 17 years.
|
On March 09 2021 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
Doubling the minimum wage across 5 years sounds a lot less crazy when you realize that it's not changed in the past 12... so it would be better phrased as doubling it across 17 years.
Phrase it how you want, it doesn't change the damage it will do to the economy.
|
For a separate viewpoint, let's look at BC (Where I live) and how we raised minimum wage from $8.75 an hour to soon to be $15.20. It took about 10 years to for the rise to happen. I know cost of living and a lot of other things are different but this is at least something to think about.
Data from here: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/390ee890-59bb-4f34-a37c-9732781ef8a0
Many of Canada's provinces haven't hit $15 yet.
1-Jun-21 $15.20
1-Jun-20 $14.60
1-Jun-19 $13.85
1-Jun-18 $12.65
15-Sep-17 $11.35
15-Sep-16 $10.85
15-Sep-15 $10.45
1-May-12 $10.25
1-Nov-11 $9.50
1-May-11 $8.75
I'm a little torn on this. It should definitely be higher than it is now.. That's a given, but bumping it to $10 immediately, and then separately negotiating a path to $15 seems more likely than getting to $15 by 2025.
The biggest jump I see initially is $2.25 over a year from may 2011 to may 2012 from $8.00 to $10.25, and smaller yearly increments after that.
|
On March 09 2021 09:28 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
Doubling the minimum wage across 5 years sounds a lot less crazy when you realize that it's not changed in the past 12... so it would be better phrased as doubling it across 17 years. Phrase it how you want, it doesn't change the damage it will do to the economy.
Short term vs long term issues. In the short term, yes, it may harm the economy in some areas. In the long term the current setup is untenable and would collapse without massive reforms. To me it is more about reducing extremes of inequality, in the long run. There's no job on earth that isn't worth 30k salary. The current economic system also tends to pay those who do the most back breaking work the least.
Any economist who tells you for sure how a raise in minimum will affect the economy is lying out their ass though. It is an impossibly complex question and answers have wavered all over the place for decades, usually according to which school of economics is in power in DC.
|
|
|
United States24690 Posts
On March 09 2021 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
Is there much or any evidence that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy?
I hear this assumption presented as fact, but everything I have seen, even locally where there was ton of push back, was it didn't hurt and likely helped.
I don't think that's quite the right question. If the U.S. changed the minimum wage to $200,000/yr, it would be bad for the economy. Is $15/hr bad for the economy? I don't know.
|
Northern Ireland25470 Posts
On March 09 2021 09:28 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
Doubling the minimum wage across 5 years sounds a lot less crazy when you realize that it's not changed in the past 12... so it would be better phrased as doubling it across 17 years. Phrase it how you want, it doesn't change the damage it will do to the economy.
What damage is that and does it outweigh the issues caused by low pay, both economically and on the human, social end.
On current trends if something isn’t done, in some domain you’re eventually going to end up with a permanent underclass who have little chance of improving their lot in life. And not exactly a huge amount of discretionary income to throw around either.
Doesn’t necessarily have to be a uniform federal minimum wage of 15 dollars by any means.
The economy doing well or not isn’t that relevant to vast swathes of people, it doesn’t transfer to better or worse wages, rent and utilities remain static. Places like Walmart aren’t going anywhere and even if unemployment does hugely tank their jobs are safe. The flip side of so-called low-skilled jobs is if societal shit does hit the fan, nobody’s firing a 20 year grizzled veteran of minimum wage work to replace them with a recently laid off white collar worker who’s going to want to fuck off as soon as they can.
|
Northern Ireland25470 Posts
On March 09 2021 10:18 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 09:28 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
Doubling the minimum wage across 5 years sounds a lot less crazy when you realize that it's not changed in the past 12... so it would be better phrased as doubling it across 17 years. Phrase it how you want, it doesn't change the damage it will do to the economy. Short term vs long term issues. In the short term, yes, it may harm the economy in some areas. In the long term the current setup is untenable and would collapse without massive reforms. To me it is more about reducing extremes of inequality, in the long run. There's no job on earth that isn't worth 30k salary. The current economic system also tends to pay those who do the most back breaking work the least. Any economist who tells you for sure how a raise in minimum will affect the economy is lying out their ass though. It is an impossibly complex question and answers have wavered all over the place for decades, usually according to which school of economics is in power in DC.
Or emotionally draining, which can be just as tough. After nigh on a year of state and media propaganda about our National Health Service ‘heroes’ they’ve got a much-needed boost of a below-inflation pay rise. For the good of the economy of course.
The good of the economy comes up an incredible amount in not giving poor, or relatively poor people some bones. Of course when it comes to merely closing innumerable tax loopholes that would help balance the books from the wealthy, the economy god apparently needs less appeasement.
The question is indeed a complex one, if we’re considering mandated minimum wages vs other countries that via culture or other structures that just organically pay higher wages to those lower down on the chain.
That’s why I’m a little skeptical about it in the US context, I could see negative externalities emerging for imposing it that way, namely in every possible loophole or shitty workaround being sought.
Hours are a rather unspoken issue, likewise demands of flexibility too, over here at least. A wage of x doesn’t really matter if employers are handing out 10-15 hour contracts and demanding full flexibility Monday to Sunday.
My last proper job hunt before saying fuck it I’m going back to school was full of this. Jobs not giving enough hours to live on, but demanding flexibility that precluded just working 2 part time gigs.
|
|
|
United States24690 Posts
On March 09 2021 11:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 10:33 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2021 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
Is there much or any evidence that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy?
I hear this assumption presented as fact, but everything I have seen, even locally where there was ton of push back, was it didn't hurt and likely helped. I don't think that's quite the right question. If the U.S. changed the minimum wage to $200,000/yr, it would be bad for the economy. Is $15/hr bad for the economy? I don't know. Which is why I asked about evidence. There won't be any on say 200k because that has not happened. But 15 and equivalent has, as well as, many many smaller ones. And everytime the counter for raising is that it is bad for the economy and yet I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Have you?
I think we can be pretty sure that 200k/yr would be bad. I have seen conflicting evidence on $15/hr, hence my statement that I don't know if it would be good or bad for the economy. My point was that you didn't ask for evidence on $15/hr being bad for the economy, you asked about if raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy, to which I argued the answer was yes, although possibly not in the <= $15/hr regime which you were actually interested in.
|
|
|
There's not much research into large minimum wage increases so it's difficult to know the effects of an increase to 15$. Most research is into small increases in the minimum wage and small increases cause little unemployment. It would make most sense to couple the minimum wage to x% of the median wage but I'm not sure how politically feasible that is.
Edit: here's an igm poll of economists in regards to the 15$ minimum wage if you're interested. Acemoglu's answer covers it wel imo.
https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage/
|
On March 09 2021 11:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 11:51 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2021 11:46 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2021 10:33 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2021 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
Is there much or any evidence that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy?
I hear this assumption presented as fact, but everything I have seen, even locally where there was ton of push back, was it didn't hurt and likely helped. I don't think that's quite the right question. If the U.S. changed the minimum wage to $200,000/yr, it would be bad for the economy. Is $15/hr bad for the economy? I don't know. Which is why I asked about evidence. There won't be any on say 200k because that has not happened. But 15 and equivalent has, as well as, many many smaller ones. And everytime the counter for raising is that it is bad for the economy and yet I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Have you? I think we can be pretty sure that 200k/yr would be bad. I have seen conflicting evidence on $15/hr, hence my statement that I don't know if it would be good or bad for the economy. My point was that you didn't ask for evidence on $15/hr being bad for the economy, you asked about if raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy, to which I argued the answer was yes, although possibly not in the <= $15/hr regime which you were actually interested in. I was not only interested in 15 though. I'm interested if anywhere it has worked out badly. I know of no place where they went back ok this or where it crushed a lot of businesses and job losses out paced the gain. Historically did it happen a somewhere and decimate the economy. Or has "its bad for the economy" always just been the thought because no one checked the evidence and in fact it's good for the economy (at the increases that have been done up to this point not up to infinity) because of maybe increased productivity and increased spending or other things I'm not thinking about. I mean look how long we all thought the tounge had spots that tasted different flavors.
Well, you could look at current indicators. According to worldpopulationreview.com, the states (including DC) with the highest costs of living are Hawaii, DC, California, New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Of which, all except Hawaii (which is an island who's primary industry is based on tourism) is in the top 10 highest minimum wages, and further DC, California, New York and Massachusetts are 4 of the top 6.
Or homeless numbers. According to www.nytimes.com, However, if you look at the rate of homelessness in the United States, taking into account the population of the state or region, Washington, D.C., ranks first, followed by New York, Hawaii and California.
Finally, if you look at 2019 unemployment (pre-COVID)www.bls.gov shows that places with a higher minimum wage has a high unemployment as well, although places like WV, Alaska, and Missippi also had elevated unemployment.
Still, the data linked from Canada's 10 year increasing minimum wage increase (along with some extra research going into coinciding increases in inflation, or relative lack thereof) is pretty interesting. It seems they found a way to increase minimum wage without significantly increasing the inflation of their currency, which is my biggest concern, so perhaps there is a way.
And again, determining the order of cause and effect for cost of living vs. minimum wage requires more research than I have time for right now, so I could perhaps be wrong on which came first.
That being said, I also don't feel like tampering with the economy in a huge way directly after a worldwide pandemic, where the economy has been severely stunted and many employers have already been forced to rely on the government to even stay open, is necsssarily a good idea.
|
In an ideal world, states would responsibly represent their own people and choose an appropriate minimum wage based on their cost of living... or even do it at a county level. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world.
What might make sense is to federally correlate the minimum wage to cost of living per state (per county would be even better). It would be more complex than a blanket $15/hr for the nation, but it would alleviate many of the issues.
People who understand COL better than me could figure out the calculation and other specifics, but by federal law, you'd have high COL states have high minimum wages and low COL states have lower minimum wages.
Seems like a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
