Topic: Minimum wage. - page 2. (Read 4826 times)
Minimum wage should always be there. But I do think many companies should reward for the job/ actions that have been made. Many ppl get paid too little for their responsibilities
Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.
many of those ''studies'' have pre-determined 'results'now compare that to the links previously provided which show higher minimum wages stimulated the economy where they occurred
Never mind...continued reading posts..you said something about being an anarchist or somesuch...No point discussing with you.
Well there's always a point discussing and exchanging views - but yes, eventually you're going to reach a disagreement in ends rather than means.That's true with all political/ethical views though. Contrary to conventional wisdom there is no "right" position which can be reached through argument. If we let that prevent argument we'd never get anywhere. It's helpful to understand the positions of others, even if they're irreparably alien to you.
To most conservatives that would be a very valid response, but I am an anarchist, so I buy your bluff.
Retaliatory force is positive, that's not what I mean when I say coercion - by coercion I mean initiatory force. The minimum wage doesn't correct some transgression of a contract the employer has neglected - it asserts a price floor and outlaws all free association below that price. Therefore, it falls into the latter category.
That would work if the economy was functioning normally, but say there is a fall in demand and workers are unemployed and factors stop production. Then there is a clear fall in demand and companies have to take cost cutting measures, at this point there are generally two options for employers cut wages, or cut jobs. At this point since the fact that the price of low end labour is inelastic doesn't matter as demand has fallen. This is where the minimum wage is a problem, it acts as a legal limit to wage cuts.
You have [two] options, reduce wages or cut jobs.
Or, stimulate consumer spending (or government spending [perhaps, through some manner of World War {that gravely disrupts international competitors}]).
I can see it will be the latter.
why don't you stop the silly hypothetical questions which only play out within classrooms and ask me questions about real-world scenarios? your question was silly
why would a salesperson ask me to pay him/her half unless of course they wanted equity or a larger variable comp plan?
With respect to 2 people "off the street", that's a nice hypothetical but does not apply to my market sector. I look for people who bring experience and market knowledge.
I can see it will be the latter. why would a salesperson ask me to pay him/her half unless of course they wanted equity or a larger variable comp plan?
With respect to 2 people "off the street", that's a nice hypothetical but does not apply to my market sector. I look for people who bring experience and market knowledge.
There is an easy way to determine this, and that's exactly what has been mentioned in the quote I keep including. A living wage should allow an individual to afford a minimum of things such as education and entertainment. This of course also refers to workers on the bottom quartile who generally are the most at risk of poverty. When we say that an individual needs something we mean needs a minimum while also avoiding poverty. Consumerism, which is subjective, isn't included. Whether you need an extra week of holiday doesn't matter when what you need is defined as that which allows you to avoid poverty.
then you are OK with allowing govt to determine what are our needs. Maybe I'm OK with a studio apt yet earn 6 figures while another person who earns half might "need" 2 bedrooms My take is that it would ignore the laws of economics to say that any change in the MW would have no effect on MW employment.
On the other hand, economics also recognizes the concept of demand elasticity -- the fact that for some goods a small change in price has a big effect on demand, while on others, a large change in price only has a small effect on demand.
The demand for low price labor seems to be fairly inelastic -- that is, an increase in the price of labor (e.g. the MW) has a moderately smaller effect on demand for low end labor.
Thus, for example, we have seen periods (e.g. the mid 1990s) of significant MW increases with little or no apparent effect on MW employment. However, there is certainly a level where the higher cost will have a greater effect on employment.
That would work if the economy was functioning normally, but say there is a fall in demand and workers are unemployed and factors stop production. Then there is a clear fall in demand and companies have to take cost cutting measures, at this point there are generally two options for employers cut wages, or cut jobs. At this point since the fact that the price of low end labour is inelastic doesn't matter as demand has fallen. This is where the minimum wage is a problem, it acts as a legal limit to wage cuts. On the other hand, economics also recognizes the concept of demand elasticity -- the fact that for some goods a small change in price has a big effect on demand, while on others, a large change in price only has a small effect on demand.
The demand for low price labor seems to be fairly inelastic -- that is, an increase in the price of labor (e.g. the MW) has a moderately smaller effect on demand for low end labor.
Thus, for example, we have seen periods (e.g. the mid 1990s) of significant MW increases with little or no apparent effect on MW employment. However, there is certainly a level where the higher cost will have a greater effect on employment.
Good for you. Care to answer my question, or do you intend to continue to dodge it for obvious reasons?
your question was sillywhy would a salesperson ask me to pay him/her half unless of course they wanted equity or a larger variable comp plan?
With respect to 2 people "off the street", that's a nice hypothetical but does not apply to my market sector. I look for people who bring experience and market knowledge.
Complete nonsense. When a large segment of society has been priced out of the job market, it is society's problem. Because if society's only solution is to tell them to be more like Edison, they are going to tear society down.
And "more valuable than zero" is not enough to live on.
Except they don't tear society down. They get angry and tear their own neighborhoods down, bringing real estate values down and businesses leave for more profitable and less violent climes. Once these unemployable and ineducable people hit rock bottom after being kicked out of mom's basement, they start killing themselves.And "more valuable than zero" is not enough to live on.
Drugs and guns are a way to speed the process up, but that's what happens eventually.
Then the intelligent carpetbaggers come in and buy the ghettos up, renovate what was once valuable land into something that is valuable again.
If the minimum wage rises marginally above inflation then of course it won't result in unemployment as rising prices, offset rising wages and therefore it's hard to argue against it. The problem come when you have a hike in the minimum wage, like the proposal to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. However there can still be some problems say the economy is in recession, and there's a fall in demand. You have to options, reduce wages or cut jobs. In the UK wages were quite flexible during the great recession and so offset a fall in jobs. In the US unemployment rose to a higher level than in the UK. Reducing wages is probably better than cutting jobs, but if your workers are on a minimum wage then there's no flexibility.
My take is that it would ignore the laws of economics to say that any change in the MW would have no effect on MW employment.On the other hand, economics also recognizes the concept of demand elasticity -- the fact that for some goods a small change in price has a big effect on demand, while on others, a large change in price only has a small effect on demand.
The demand for low price labor seems to be fairly inelastic -- that is, an increase in the price of labor (e.g. the MW) has a moderately smaller effect on demand for low end labor.
Thus, for example, we have seen periods (e.g. the mid 1990s) of significant MW increases with little or no apparent effect on MW employment. However, there is certainly a level where the higher cost will have a greater effect on employment.
Again, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
People have different needs and different values, but the point here is to define what we mean when we say need. Here that's having a minimum quality of life and avoiding poverty. If that minimum should, however, be defined relative to the mean, that mean should approach the minimum.
I have no $50k salespeople, it's more than double that.
Good for you. Care to answer my question, or do you intend to continue to dodge it for obvious reasons? There is an easy way to determine this, and that's exactly what has been mentioned in the quote I keep including. A living wage should allow an individual to afford a minimum of things such as education and entertainment. This of course also refers to workers on the bottom quartile who generally are the most at risk of poverty. When we say that an individual needs something we mean needs a minimum while also avoiding poverty. Consumerism, which is subjective, isn't included. Whether you need an extra week of holiday doesn't matter when what you need is defined as that which allows you to avoid poverty.
I think your talking more about welfare then a min wage. Welfare/Doll your statement holds a lot of ground. For min wage that would murder the economy. 
The argument for standard of living is stupid in regards to minimum wage. Let's say, for example, experts deem a bare minimum of $15 an hour to live an acceptable lifestyle. If the minimum wage is raised to reflect that, companies then increase the price of their products to compensate for the higher wages they pay their employees. Once everyone reacts to the wage increase, there really isn't an increase in standard of living for low end workers.
Again, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
People have different needs and different values, but the point here is to define what we mean when we say need. Here that's having a minimum quality of life and avoiding poverty. again, you are allowing govt to be your parent or overlord. Who are they to decide whether or not I NEED an IPhone 6 plus, or if I NEED 2 weeks in Hawaii ?
So, it seems that you are OK with the govt determing what are the needs of the individual.
There is an easy way to determine this, and that's exactly what has been mentioned in the quote I keep including. A living wage should allow an individual to afford a minimum of things such as education and entertainment. This of course also refers to workers on the bottom quartile who generally are the most at risk of poverty. When we say that an individual needs something we mean needs a minimum while also avoiding poverty. Consumerism, which is subjective, isn't included. Whether you need an extra week of holiday doesn't matter when what you need is defined as that which allows you to avoid poverty. So, it seems that you are OK with the govt determing what are the needs of the individual.
Less a consultant firm, more an economic institute. This has nothing to do with consumerism, cars televisions, or what they want. If it was based on what people wanted then the living wage would probably be much higher. It's all about what people need to live a basic lifestyle. That is to say one in which they aren't threatened by poverty.
again, you are allowing govt to be your parent or overlord. Who are they to decide whether or not I NEED an IPhone 6 plus, or if I NEED 2 weeks in Hawaii ?So, it seems that you are OK with the govt determing what are the needs of the individual.
Again, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
you may want to become familiar with the above quote because that is what you are suggesting and support.
who gets to determine what is "acceptable" ?
The local housing market of the surrounding state area, the people whom elect there Governor. Jump to: