6 ms·

I hereby give you an honorary 1000 karma. Reading this article disgusted me. I'm not a "republican" or "democrat", or anything else for that matter, but I have

I hereby give you an honorary 1000 karma. Reading this article disgusted me. I'm not a "republican" or "democrat", or anything else for that matter, but I have some intelligence and sense. Arguing that raising minimum wage will some how lead to more prosperity is the same thing as stating "people with minimum wage jobs currently have prosperity". The minimum is the minimum, no matter how high we raise it. The only thing raising the minimum wage does is punish people like my little brother who worked so hard to get to $14/hr. If minimum wage is raised to $15, he will earn minimum wage again. This means the buying power he has earned over the past 3 years will be lost to those who should be starting where he started 3 years ago. If you don't understand the difference between that and prosperity, then you're an idiot. That's not an ad hominem attack. That's meant in the literal sense.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Minimum wage increases, experience has shown, put upward pressure on wages generally. It is not the case that everyone making between the old minimum wage and the new minimum wage ends up at the new minimum after the change.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  Source? I'd like to read up on that.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  Let's continue your thought: If minimum wage increases put upward pressure on wages generally, then what happens? Higher wage levels in general means more money in people's pockets, and this can turn into general price inflation (especially since business costs have risen due to the general level of wages going up). So let's assume you now have inflation. This means everything just got more expensive, so now that new higher wage level buys you less and less. And now the people who are completely out of work and can't command the minimum wage for their skills/labor are even farther behind.
  - petra 11y ago
    More money in people's pocket doesn't necessarily cause inflation in everything - for goods which supply can be increased at will(new factory etc), their long-term prices mostly depend on competition and manufacturing costs. As for goods with inherently limited supply, like land, there would likely be some inflation - so in the end maybe you'll spend the same salary share on them. But the rest of your salary still carries more purchasing power than before.
  - nomat 11y ago
    Then it seems like the minimum wage is not the underlying issue. If there are too many people and not enough jobs, fiddling with the minimum wage won't have any real effect because regardless of what it is, there are always going to be people who are jobless (and therefore without income). So how do we reconcile the fact that currently, most people must work in order to live and yet there isn't enough work to go around?
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      > how do we reconcile the fact that currently, most people must work in order to live and yet there isn't enough work to go around? If you are a big powerful government, you have many tools to reconcile sweeping social problems like this. Foreign wars and civil wars are effective at wiping out lots of people here and abroad. So are infectious diseases. You can also round up and intern undesirable people indefinitely as well or just kill them off.
      - EdSharkey 11y ago
        And yet nothing I said was untrue nor out of the realm of possibility.
        nomat 11y ago
        I didn't down vote you but I assume the people that did have some kind of value system that doesn't involve culling the underperforming subsection of humanity during their annual review. The implication in my original post was that there is enough "wealth" to go around but the current system prevents it from being shared with everyone. When I say shared wealth I don't mean equally, I mean enough so that people can survive without having to fight for subsistence wages to work part time at their local mega mart.
drodgers 11y ago
Hi, Australian here. Our nominal prices (in AUD) are about the same as in the US (in USD) and our minimum wage is $17.29 an hour (+ 25% for casual employees). People who make minimum wage here aren't struggling to survive like they are in the US; the minimum wage is actually liveable. Prices don't just rise when the minimum wage does. Firstly, people who make minimum wage make up a small proportion of overall income (something something 1% something something). Secondly, prices vary mostly because of the price of inputs and the demand for the product, not the overall wage level; if anything, prices of locally produced, labour-intense goods will rise a little because labour is now more expensive (not because some customers have a little more money). I understand that your brother might not like the social stigma of making minimum wage again, but make not mistake; he will have more purchasing power than before. YOu didn't bring it up, but the strongest criticism to make about a higher minimum wage is that it will leave some people with better paying jobs and some people with no jobs.
- vlasev 11y ago
  1%? Really?
- mangeletti 11y ago
  > he will have more purchasing power than before. Pray tell, how does this magic work? My little brother can save his paycheck for 1 month right now and afford to pay a minimum wage employee (much like he was a few years ago) for 1 month while also living. This would allow him to start a business. If minimum wage was raised to $15, he would never be able to save enough to pay this employee with his savings. Ever.
- T2_t2 11y ago
  Except... The prices are higher. In NYC, I can get a breakfast for $5, and I got a FRESH BLT at 3am at a deli in Brooklyn... for $3.50. There ain't no WAY I can buy either of those thongs in Sydney, Brisvegas or Radelaide. Besides, Australia is basically the same demographics coast to coast, where the vast majority of people live in just a few cities, and the popluation is really small. Try to make broad gerneralisations that link San Francisco (7 million people, $63,024 household income), Miami (3,876,380/$38,632) and Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, California CMSA (16,373,645/21,170). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_statistical_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_st... Compare that to the Aussie states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_territories_by_gross_state_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_... Australian minimum wages are high for a variety of (historically anomalous?) reasons, that aren't always applicable to countries with much more varied demographic splits.
drewcrawford 11y ago
I refer you to Question A [0], where in 2013 a few dozen practicing economists were asked this question: > Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment. Not a single economist chose "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree". The results were split very roughly evenly between agree, disagree, and undecided. From this research I have derived the following conclusions: 1. Neither being for or against a raised minimum wage is an idiotic opinion from the current research. The experts are divided, so there must be no conclusive argument either way. 2. There is one real idiotic opinion: claiming to be sure. The sole point of consensus here is that nobody is confident in their answer. [0] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...
- mangeletti 11y ago
  First off, I gave a concrete example and said you're an idiot if you can't see the difference between that example and prosperity. I don't see a rebuttal from you. All I see is a genetic fallacy, namely appeal to authority. The reason nobody agrees whether minimum wage is good or bad is because we have Austrian and Keynesian economics at battle in America. Only one of those two can be better than the other, and if we define "better" as the ability for an individual to work hard and prosper as a result, there is no question about which it is. The debates are not about things like the validity of the technical aspects of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The debates are about whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer. The debates are about whether equality means everyone should have an equal chance and also be allowed to fail, or whether they should get everything free.
  - drewcrawford 11y ago
    > All I see is a genetic fallacy, namely appeal to authority. Appeal to relevant authority is not a fallacy. > because we have Austrian and Keynesian economics at battle in America. This is a common misconception among "armchair economists". There is no battle betwen Austrian and Keynesian economics in America today any more than there is a battle between Confederates and the Union. There was a battle, years ago, but it has been over along time, although there still are a small number of weirdos still carrying on. Now many of the conclusions of Keynesian and Austrian economics are still alive and well, but the reasoning behind them is completely different, and the war today is between camps with names like Monetarism, Lukasian Rationalist, Chicago School, and so on. The people in that poll are not citing Human Action, anymore than working programmers today are citing the 8088 specification. It is a thing that happened, it was important at the time, but we've moved on. > The debates are not about things like the validity of the technical aspects of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The debates are about whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer. Have you read an economics paper? They are so technical many programmers cannot get through one. For example, here's some random abstract from the SSRN [0]: > We provide a formula for the tax rate at the top of the Laffer curve as a function of three elasticities. Our formula applies to static models and to steady states of dynamic models. One of the elasticities that enters our formula has been estimated in the elasticity of taxable income literature. We apply standard empirical methods from this literature to data produced by reforming the tax system in a model economy. We find that these standard methods underestimate the relevant elasticity in models with endogenous human capital accumulation. There is no debate among working economists about "whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer". It is like suggesting mathematicians are debating whether imaginary numbers exist. [0] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688947 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688947

dragonwriter 11y ago

Minimum wage increases, experience has shown, put upward pressure on wages generally. It is not the case that everyone making between the old minimum wage and the new minimum wage ends up at the new minimum after the change.

SEJeff 11y ago
Source? I'd like to read up on that.
clarkmoody 11y ago
Let's continue your thought: If minimum wage increases put upward pressure on wages generally, then what happens? Higher wage levels in general means more money in people's pockets, and this can turn into general price inflation (especially since business costs have risen due to the general level of wages going up). So let's assume you now have inflation. This means everything just got more expensive, so now that new higher wage level buys you less and less. And now the people who are completely out of work and can't command the minimum wage for their skills/labor are even farther behind.
- petra 11y ago
  More money in people's pocket doesn't necessarily cause inflation in everything - for goods which supply can be increased at will(new factory etc), their long-term prices mostly depend on competition and manufacturing costs. As for goods with inherently limited supply, like land, there would likely be some inflation - so in the end maybe you'll spend the same salary share on them. But the rest of your salary still carries more purchasing power than before.
- nomat 11y ago
  Then it seems like the minimum wage is not the underlying issue. If there are too many people and not enough jobs, fiddling with the minimum wage won't have any real effect because regardless of what it is, there are always going to be people who are jobless (and therefore without income). So how do we reconcile the fact that currently, most people must work in order to live and yet there isn't enough work to go around?
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    > how do we reconcile the fact that currently, most people must work in order to live and yet there isn't enough work to go around? If you are a big powerful government, you have many tools to reconcile sweeping social problems like this. Foreign wars and civil wars are effective at wiping out lots of people here and abroad. So are infectious diseases. You can also round up and intern undesirable people indefinitely as well or just kill them off.
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      And yet nothing I said was untrue nor out of the realm of possibility.
      - nomat 11y ago
        I didn't down vote you but I assume the people that did have some kind of value system that doesn't involve culling the underperforming subsection of humanity during their annual review. The implication in my original post was that there is enough "wealth" to go around but the current system prevents it from being shared with everyone. When I say shared wealth I don't mean equally, I mean enough so that people can survive without having to fight for subsistence wages to work part time at their local mega mart.

drodgers 11y ago

Hi, Australian here. Our nominal prices (in AUD) are about the same as in the US (in USD) and our minimum wage is $17.29 an hour (+ 25% for casual employees). People who make minimum wage here aren't struggling to survive like they are in the US; the minimum wage is actually liveable. Prices don't just rise when the minimum wage does. Firstly, people who make minimum wage make up a small proportion of overall income (something something 1% something something). Secondly, prices vary mostly because of the price of inputs and the demand for the product, not the overall wage level; if anything, prices of locally produced, labour-intense goods will rise a little because labour is now more expensive (not because some customers have a little more money). I understand that your brother might not like the social stigma of making minimum wage again, but make not mistake; he will have more purchasing power than before. YOu didn't bring it up, but the strongest criticism to make about a higher minimum wage is that it will leave some people with better paying jobs and some people with no jobs.

vlasev 11y ago
1%? Really?
mangeletti 11y ago
> he will have more purchasing power than before. Pray tell, how does this magic work? My little brother can save his paycheck for 1 month right now and afford to pay a minimum wage employee (much like he was a few years ago) for 1 month while also living. This would allow him to start a business. If minimum wage was raised to $15, he would never be able to save enough to pay this employee with his savings. Ever.
T2_t2 11y ago
Except... The prices are higher. In NYC, I can get a breakfast for $5, and I got a FRESH BLT at 3am at a deli in Brooklyn... for $3.50. There ain't no WAY I can buy either of those thongs in Sydney, Brisvegas or Radelaide. Besides, Australia is basically the same demographics coast to coast, where the vast majority of people live in just a few cities, and the popluation is really small. Try to make broad gerneralisations that link San Francisco (7 million people, $63,024 household income), Miami (3,876,380/$38,632) and Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, California CMSA (16,373,645/21,170). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_statistical_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_st... Compare that to the Aussie states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_territories_by_gross_state_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_... Australian minimum wages are high for a variety of (historically anomalous?) reasons, that aren't always applicable to countries with much more varied demographic splits.

drewcrawford 11y ago

I refer you to Question A [0], where in 2013 a few dozen practicing economists were asked this question: > Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment. Not a single economist chose "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree". The results were split very roughly evenly between agree, disagree, and undecided. From this research I have derived the following conclusions: 1. Neither being for or against a raised minimum wage is an idiotic opinion from the current research. The experts are divided, so there must be no conclusive argument either way. 2. There is one real idiotic opinion: claiming to be sure. The sole point of consensus here is that nobody is confident in their answer. [0] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...

mangeletti 11y ago
First off, I gave a concrete example and said you're an idiot if you can't see the difference between that example and prosperity. I don't see a rebuttal from you. All I see is a genetic fallacy, namely appeal to authority. The reason nobody agrees whether minimum wage is good or bad is because we have Austrian and Keynesian economics at battle in America. Only one of those two can be better than the other, and if we define "better" as the ability for an individual to work hard and prosper as a result, there is no question about which it is. The debates are not about things like the validity of the technical aspects of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The debates are about whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer. The debates are about whether equality means everyone should have an equal chance and also be allowed to fail, or whether they should get everything free.
- drewcrawford 11y ago
  > All I see is a genetic fallacy, namely appeal to authority. Appeal to relevant authority is not a fallacy. > because we have Austrian and Keynesian economics at battle in America. This is a common misconception among "armchair economists". There is no battle betwen Austrian and Keynesian economics in America today any more than there is a battle between Confederates and the Union. There was a battle, years ago, but it has been over along time, although there still are a small number of weirdos still carrying on. Now many of the conclusions of Keynesian and Austrian economics are still alive and well, but the reasoning behind them is completely different, and the war today is between camps with names like Monetarism, Lukasian Rationalist, Chicago School, and so on. The people in that poll are not citing Human Action, anymore than working programmers today are citing the 8088 specification. It is a thing that happened, it was important at the time, but we've moved on. > The debates are not about things like the validity of the technical aspects of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The debates are about whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer. Have you read an economics paper? They are so technical many programmers cannot get through one. For example, here's some random abstract from the SSRN [0]: > We provide a formula for the tax rate at the top of the Laffer curve as a function of three elasticities. Our formula applies to static models and to steady states of dynamic models. One of the elasticities that enters our formula has been estimated in the elasticity of taxable income literature. We apply standard empirical methods from this literature to data produced by reforming the tax system in a model economy. We find that these standard methods underestimate the relevant elasticity in models with endogenous human capital accumulation. There is no debate among working economists about "whether the individual should be allowed to prosper any longer". It is like suggesting mathematicians are debating whether imaginary numbers exist. [0] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688947 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688947