Gap GuiltFollow

If there really were no adjustment or other negative economic effects, then why stop at $15/hour? Why not make minimum wage $50/hour? Then everyone would be economically comfortable, right?

There's a reason why even minimum wage advocates always increase it in small bits and over time. Because by keeping it small, it minimizes the cost adjustment, thus ensuring that the majority of people who earn significantly more than the minimum wage don't notice it. That way they can continue to use the same argument as a wedge issue in election years. Which is really the point of all of this.



Huh? It doesn't increase or decrease the money in the economy at all. We're not talking about monetary inflation. We're talking about consumer price adjustments (which can lead to inflation, but it's not about measuring one against GDP like you're trying to do). If you raise the wages of the workers in a store, the store must increase its prices to make up the difference. Calculated directly, this is a small increase because compensation is only part of the total cost of business. However, much of those other costs *also* involve labor (actually you can argue that all of them do). Someone is paid to make all the products you sell in your store. Someone else is paid to package those products. Someone is paid to deliver them. Etc, etc, etc.

The effect on this isn't just about the dollar increase in the wages of those working in the store, it's the wage increase for everyone involved in any part of anything sold in that store or used by the store in the process of selling those goods. And the larger the wage increase, the more people's wages increase, and the larger this effect. Given that the majority of near minimum wage workers work in retail/hospitality industries, this means that it directly affects everyone. It affects those with lower incomes *more* than those with high incomes, because they're spending a larger portion of their earnings buying groceries. But those are the very people you're claiming to help by increasing the minimum wage.

But why stop there, if it really works why not $100 or even $100,000?

God damn government handouts. Damn welfare bums sucking at the teets of their employers.



edit: sauce: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260581/-MUST-SEE-Jon-Stewart-BLASTS-arguments-against-raising-the-minimum-wage#

Sorry as a canadian thats how I have to view my Jon Stewart these days. Thanks Obama.

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 9:20pm by rdmcandie

Um... You do realize that the argument I'm making has existed and been made long before this last week on Fox News, right? And while I guess it's fun to get your political opinions from a comedian, the response he gives avoids the actual point being made (with comedy, so there's that).

If there are zero economic negatives to raising minimum wage, then there should be no negatives no matter how high you raise it. If there *are*, then either those negatives exist to some degree no matter how much it's raised, and we should be honest about them *or* those negatives kick in at some specific dollar amount, and we should be talking about that. But what we get are really arbitrary numbers. Some propose raising it to $10/hour. Some to $15/hour. Some even more. Why the difference? If there's no harm at all, then why not raise it to be high enough so that people can live more comfortably? I mean, $15/hour is better than $7.50, but you're not going to be living large at that rate.

If there is harm, then shouldn't we be able to determine some specific dollar level at which either the harm doesn't occur yet (like if there's a cut off), or the benefits can be shown mathematically to outweigh that harm? And if that's the case, shouldn't all the supposed economic geniuses on the left all agree on that dollar amount?

Yet they don't. So it's not really about economics, it's about emotion. Which, I suppose, is why the best people to defend raising the minimum wage are comedians. Cause it's a joke.

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 8:36pm by gbaji

Hey, at least he gets his news from somewhere!

If there really were no adjustment or other negative economic effects, then why stop at $15/hour? Why not make minimum wage $50/hour? Then everyone would be economically comfortable, right?

You know who thought that way? Stalin! Does anyone in your life take this **** even remotely seriously?

Jim: "Hey, gang, the restaurant just called and wanted to let us know that a 20% service fee is included in lieu of a gratuity for groups our size."
Gbaji: "WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHY NOT MAKE IT 192932382832% SINCE 20% IS GOOD! HOW WILL THEY VALUE THE ENVELOPE OF SOY FLOUR AND RICE HUSKS I'VE BROUGHT ALONG TO SAVE MONEY??"
Jim: "Who brought..sigh...didn't we agree that"
Gbaji: "I LEARNED FOLIC ACID IS IMPORTANT FOR HEALTH!!! NOW I BATHE IN IT. COME BATHE WITH ME!!!"

There are economic negatives to raising the minimum wage to extreme levels. These effects are minuscule (ie, probably less than rounding error) if you raise the FMW to $10-12/h and enormous if you raise it to $10000000000000000000000000000000000000000/hr. Most people get this concept.

I'm sure some restaurant will add a 1% "Thanks Obama" fee to your meal if the FMW is raised. So there's that.

Part of the article mentions alternate means in which companies absorb the higher labor cost beyond "fire everyone", "go out of business" or even "raise all our prices". This would also help explain why raising the minimum wage to a million-thousand dollars isn't the same thing -- moderate increases can be absorbed in various ways and spread over time whereas cataclysmic shifts could not.

This. Seriously we did this years ago, and it's worked fine for years. It's humorous that people keep claiming it's a killer, when it clearly hasn't been. At least to any amount that matters.

For all the ups and downs and what not, it doesn't really make a bit of meaningful difference. We pay people over $9/hr to pump our gas for us here, and our prices are basically indistinguishable to those on the other side of the borders. The peg to inflation is a good idea, it keeps salaries at the same relative year after year and you don't have to worry about it. People don't get relatively poorer due to inflation. The cost to society is minimal, either way. The percentage of the economy that is represented in those minimum wage jobs is so small you can fiddle with it all you want within reasonable limits and you'll be hard pressed to see the effects, at all.

There's just a whole lot of more important factors in the economy, and many that are probably worth a lot more debate and airtime than this is getting.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 8:19am by someproteinguy

That's weird, I'm built roughly like The Machinist but 400 calories to me is a light snack.

Weight Watchers doesn't measure calories, so the calorie-in-calorie-out varies on a daily basis.

I'm computer-ridden, close enough.

I've always had the metabolism of a turtle.