Raising minimum wage...how is this supposed to help?

[Superman]

In my universe, it is important to separate what we know from what we think and what we wish. Assumptions that serve to support our economic theories and wishes.

We KNOW there are 2 million workers in America who are earning at or less than federal minimum wage. At least, there were in 2005.

We're pretty sure that number will go up when federal minimum wage is raised.

Slightly less than half of them were over the age of 24.

Now, if we don't like these facts, let's just assume they're all members of that highly compensated industry called "food service."

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
In my universe, it is important to separate what we know from what we think and what we wish. Assumptions that serve to support our economic theories and wishes.

We KNOW there are 2 million workers in America who are earning at or less than federal minimum wage. At least, there were in 2005.

We're pretty sure that number will go up when federal minimum wage is raised.

Slightly less than half of them were over the age of 24.

Now, if we don't like these facts, let's just assume they're all members of that highly compensated industry called "food service."

Again, that is not a fact. We have two million workers in America whos income consists atleast partially of a minimum wage job.

[Superman]

Actually, we know that the vast majority are earning less than federal minimum wage. That's part of the breakdown provided by BLS. And it lends credence to your theory that a portion of these workers fall under the minimum wage exemption for workers earning tips.

But it would be self-serving to dismiss this whole issue by declaring the workers to be highly compensated tip earners. Other exemptions to federal minimum wage exist. Any company, in any industry, meeting certain requirements will be exempt. I've dealt with companies that deliberately do this. They do not accept VISA payments, for example, because that's interstate trade and would subject them to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which invoked minimum wage, overtime, etc.

So yeah. Some of those workers are paid tips.

And no, I'm not going to dismiss this issue on the theory there is no problem. Your assumptions may support that, but you don't have data to support it. Just a political/economic wish/belief.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
In my universe, it is important to separate what we know from what we think and what we wish. Assumptions that serve to support our economic theories and wishes.

Indeed, that's what makes this so difficult for you sociofascists to scam.

We KNOW there are 2 million workers in America who are earning at or less than federal minimum wage. At least, there were in 2005.

We know no such thing. The workforce total is 145,629,000 people, a number that changes daily, if not hourly. the national unemloyment rate is about 4.5%, a figure that dwarfs the one you present, even if your number is accurate which is unlikely.

We're pretty sure that number will go up when federal minimum wage is raised.

Self fulfilling by law, raise the minimum wage then claim how many are making the new wage, as if no one will notice that those above the old minimum wage are now at the new minimum wage. Gee, will these old socialists never grow up?

Slightly less than half of them were over the age of 24.

Hmmm, slightly less than half of less than two percent of the workforce, Oh my God, we're in a catastrophe.

Now, if we don't like these facts, let's just assume they're all members of that highly compensated industry called "food service."

An irrelevancy.

[Superman]

Pat, please arm yourself with some information before you chime in with conclusions that serve only to illustrate your lack of information. This should help you, but I'm not always going to be there to give you links:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat44.pdf

[lendaddy]

Among industry groups, the proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was highest in leisure and hospitality (about 15 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in food services and drinking places. For many of these workers, tips supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Pat, please arm yourself with some information before you chime in with conclusions that serve only to illustrate your lack of information. This should help you, but I'm not always going to be there to give you links:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat44.pdf

As I stated, using YOUR figure, you're asking Americans to raise the minimum wage for about 0.75% of the workforce while causing 4-6% of the workforce to lose their jobs.

Good work. These sociofascists always appear to be mired in the 1930's, for good reason.

[Bill Verburg]

I don't recall everyone getting this worked up over the 8 raises congress gave themselves since the last time the national minimum wage was raised.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Bill Verburg
I don't recall everyone getting this worked up over the 8 raises congress gave themselves since the last time the national minimum wage was raised.

Why don't you start a thread on this subject, and discover the answer, Bill?

It is of course, totally unrelated to the minimum wage, but as far as I'm concerned, the Congressional pay should be set at zero. And, they should meet once every two years for no more than 3-6 months. the presidents salary should be the same, with instant impeachment for any unConstitutional activities.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
As I stated, using YOUR figure, you're asking Americans to raise the minimum wage for about 0.75% of the workforce while causing 4-6% of the workforce to lose their jobs.

Good work. These sociofascists always appear to be mired in the 1930's, for good reason.

Perhaps you are forgetting that the minimum wage increase will cause a three trillion dollar decrease in taxpayers' costs toward social programs. Hey, if you can use made-up statistics, then so can I.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by fastpat
As I stated, using YOUR figure, you're asking Americans to raise the minimum wage for about 0.75% of the workforce while causing 4-6% of the workforce to lose their jobs.

Good work. These sociofascists always appear to be mired in the 1930's, for good reason.

Well, if they are as few as you opine, then a tiny raise certainly can't hurt you or your economy.

"Sociofascists", excellent jibe - name calling is always the first sign of rational discourse.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by fastpat
Why don't you start a thread on this subject, and discover the answer, Bill?

It is of course, totally unrelated to the minimum wage, but as far as I'm concerned, the Congressional pay should be set at zero. And, they should meet once every two years for no more than 3-6 months. the presidents salary should be the same, with instant impeachment for any unConstitutional activities.

Too bad you can't be bothered to answer a good point in rebuttal even though you always claim the privilege to move every thread onto your peculiar view of consitutional government. Only an ideologue views his own opinions as fact and opposing facts as opinion.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman
Brilliant, Fint. Those folks will be making MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MONTH. I guess that's your signal to tap into the excess wealth. You certainly have a keen understanding of economics.

Please explain what someone's income of "MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH" has to do with my understanding of economics. It appears from this statement that you are the one who fails to grasp even the most basic economic principles.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Well, if they are as few as you opine, then a tiny raise certainly can't hurt you or your economy.

"Sociofascists", excellent jibe - name calling is always the first sign of rational discourse.

Sociofascist is a descriptor of a specific political philosophy, much the same a liberal or conservative, but more accurate.

It most certainly isn't name calling, but you may attempt to paint it as such, which is a sign of non-rational discourse.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Too bad you can't be bothered to answer a good point in rebuttal even though you always claim the privilege to move every thread onto your peculiar view of consitutional government. Only an ideologue views his own opinions as fact and opposing facts as opinion.

I posted a huge reference within this thread, it's up to you to read it.

Further, anyone can find out the total number of the workforce in America, it's nearly ubiquitous. If you can't find it in 24 hours, get back to me.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fintstone
Please explain what someone's income of "MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH" has to do with my understanding of economics. It appears from this statement that you are the one who fails to grasp even the most basic economic principles.

I didn't get much sleep last night and still, this strikes me as quite amusing. If you want to see it, go find an economist....any economist....and tell them one of the posters on an Internet board fails to grasp even the most basic economic principles, like the inflation caused by a hike in the minimum wage. He'll show you the laugh.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
I didn't get much sleep last night and still, this strikes me as quite amusing. If you want to see it, go find an economist....any economist....and tell them one of the posters on an Internet board fails to grasp even the most basic economic principles, like the inflation caused by a hike in the minimum wage. He'll show you the laugh.

The Mythology of the Minimum Wage written by economists, explains the economic problems with the minimum wage, which remains contrary to the US constitution.

An exerpt
Real statistics indicate that the critics of minimum wage laws were right all along. While it is true that minimum wages do not drive the national unemployment rate up to astronomical levels, it does adversely affect teenagers and ethnic minorities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate for everyone over the age of 16 was 5.6% in 2005. Yet unemployment was 17.3% for those aged 16-19 years. For those aged 16-17 unemployment was 19.7%. In the 18-19 age group unemployment was 15.8%. Minimum wage laws do affect ethnic minorities more so than others.[3] The unemployment rate for white teens in the 16-17 age group was 17.3% in 2005. The same figures for Hispanic and black teens were 25% and 40.9% respectively. Of course, these figures decrease for older minorities. Blacks aged 18-19 and 20-24 had 25.7% and 19.9% unemployment in 2005. For Hispanics unemployment was slightly lower — 17.8% at age 18-19 and 9.6% at age 20-24.

[cashflyer]

I'm going to chime in with two items I ran across. I found them relevant to the question of whether or not raising minimum wage will decrease poverty.

Item 1) According to the US Census figures, approximately 60% of americans who were listed as being below the poverty level also listed as being unemployed.

My conclusion: No matter what the minimum wage, if you don't work you don't earn.

Item 2) According to a Federal Reserve analysis of the NAIRU, every time there has been a raise to minimum wage, there has been a corresponding rise in unemployment.

My conclusion: As you increase the costs of an entry level positions, there will be fewer entry level positions.


I personally believe the answers lie in various tax reforms and handout reforms.

[Superman]

To clarify, the part I thought was funny wasn't the suggestion that wage increases might bring some inflationary pressure. That's a given. Whether it is enough to actually cause measurable inflation, is not a given.

But if there's one thing that's universal in the field of economics, it's diversity of opinions. I had an Econ professor who administred a T/F quiz every Friday and discussed the correct answers on Monday. He once started to read a question that started "Economists agree that....." and he stopped. He said "This statement is obviously false" and, without smirking at all, moved onto the next question. The one thing I see economists ALL joke at, is this. Any economics conclusion that uses terms like "basic economic principles" or any other statement that pretends the conclusion is beyond criticism.....will make economists chuckle.

Pat, if you want to prove that prices are effected by sunspots, that's easy. Probably don't even need an economist for that.

Quite frankly, capitalism causes unemployment. It is a settled fact of economics (hehehe) that capitalism requires a certain amount of unemployment. Without that, there would be no available labor market. In that case, you would see rapid wage inflation. Economists are unanimous on this one. (hehehehe)

[JSDSKI]

Not only that, but unemployment improves capitalist efficiency. Maybe everybody should quit working !