3 ms·

>there are side effects of raising the minimum wage. Yeah, like more people who don't require social assistance, and eventually, more people spending money in

>there are side effects of raising the minimum wage. Yeah, like more people who don't require social assistance, and eventually, more people spending money in local economies. >Besides the fact that a small percentage of US work force are actually paid minimum, most more or less than it. That's only because it just isn't survivable to earn minimum wage, at least not for any reasonable definition of survivable.

wnewman 13y ago
Insignificant price controls don't make much difference, so it's basically a wash. Significant price controls tend to have predictable perverse effects. It seems to be impolite to report them: for some years, every time I read a story about long gas lines somewhere, I go searching for information to verify that yes, it was under a system of gas price controls, and generally I can verify it with enough poking around in search engines. But it seems very uncommon for it to be reported in the news story about gas lines. Because gas lines just happen, like sunspots, you know? If you think modern levels of intervention in the labor market --- not just minimum wage, but mandatory benefits and a host of other things --- have been imposed with such a marvellously deft touch that they shouldn't cause persistent failure of labor markets to clear, it is possible to dream up other reasons that might conceivably explain the observed outcome of historically high long term unemployment. Not everyone finds those explanations convincing, though.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Insignificant price controls don't make much difference, so it's basically a wash. Significant price controls tend to have predictable perverse effects. It seems to be impolite to report them: for some years, every time I read a story about long gas lines somewhere, I go searching for information to verify that yes, it was under a system of gas price controls, and generally I can verify it with enough poking around in search engines. But it seems very uncommon for it to be reported in the news story about gas lines. Because gas lines just happen, like sunspots, you know? What is this? I don't even... >If you think modern levels of intervention in the labor market --- not just minimum wage, but mandatory benefits and a host of other things --- have been imposed with such a marvellously deft touch I don't. >that they shouldn't cause persistent failure of labor markets to clear, it is possible to dream up other reasons that might conceivably explain the observed outcome of historically high long term unemployment. Not everyone finds those explanations convincing, though. Whether you like the fact that our economy is putzed around by central planners is a different topic. I'll approach this with the foregone conclusion that it's what we're stuck with, and that we have to find a way to live with it. Actually, central planning has little to do with the obvious necessity that the people who live in and around our communities must be able to support themselves, and if they cannot; then that problem will sort itself out either through social programs paid by taxes, charity, the population's mobility, or as a last resort theft and violence.
danielweber 13y ago
Not all jobs are supposed to be able to support a family of 4 at a middle-class lifestyle on 40 hours a week. What jobs are teenagers supposed to have? We need to have entry-level jobs for people who are just getting started in the labor market, whose labor isn't worth that much because they are still working on basic job skills, like showing up to work on time sober. FYI: I don't think raising the minimum wage just a buck is going to have any significant downsides. We need to remember that there can be people whose labor isn't worth that new minimum wage, though. There is something to be said about an employer having 3 $8-an-hour employees versus 2 $12-an-hour employees.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Not all jobs are supposed to be able to support a family of 4 at a middle-class lifestyle on 40 hours a week. Sophistry. Come on, you can do better than that. >What jobs are teenagers supposed to have? They can mow yards, build crappy websites with PHP, Lemonade stands, etc. I don't know, nor do I particularly care. Teenagers aren't a significant part of the economy. For my part, I worked at all kinds of crap as a teenager, never making as little as the minimum wage, carefully saving up thousands of dollars (really, I was a tight fisted teenager). I pissed away lots of chances to have fun, only to face the realization that my years of constant after-school employment hadn't even netted me enough money for a single year of room, board, and tuition at a state college. >We need to have entry-level jobs for people who are just getting started in the labor market, If it isn't worth paying someone a livable wage, then it obviously isn't an essential need. That's basic econ telling you to stop wasting your time. >whose labor isn't worth that much because they are still working on basic job skills, like showing up to work on time sober. Vocational school, and probationary employment seem sufficient to me. >FYI: I don't think raising the minimum wage just a buck is going to have any significant downsides. Me neither. One might even argue for locales to define a minimum wage, maybe somehow indexed to the cost of living, as at least one has. >We need to remember that there can be people whose labor isn't worth that new minimum wage, though. Are you referring to mentally and physically disabled people? There is a gov't program to subsidize their wages, which still allows employers (like Goodwill Industries) to abuse them arbitrarily (but supposedly based upon an objective metric of productivity). >There is something to be said about an employer having 3 $8-an-hour employees versus 2 $12-an-hour employees. Is there? Please say it.

wnewman 13y ago

Insignificant price controls don't make much difference, so it's basically a wash. Significant price controls tend to have predictable perverse effects. It seems to be impolite to report them: for some years, every time I read a story about long gas lines somewhere, I go searching for information to verify that yes, it was under a system of gas price controls, and generally I can verify it with enough poking around in search engines. But it seems very uncommon for it to be reported in the news story about gas lines. Because gas lines just happen, like sunspots, you know? If you think modern levels of intervention in the labor market --- not just minimum wage, but mandatory benefits and a host of other things --- have been imposed with such a marvellously deft touch that they shouldn't cause persistent failure of labor markets to clear, it is possible to dream up other reasons that might conceivably explain the observed outcome of historically high long term unemployment. Not everyone finds those explanations convincing, though.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Insignificant price controls don't make much difference, so it's basically a wash. Significant price controls tend to have predictable perverse effects. It seems to be impolite to report them: for some years, every time I read a story about long gas lines somewhere, I go searching for information to verify that yes, it was under a system of gas price controls, and generally I can verify it with enough poking around in search engines. But it seems very uncommon for it to be reported in the news story about gas lines. Because gas lines just happen, like sunspots, you know? What is this? I don't even... >If you think modern levels of intervention in the labor market --- not just minimum wage, but mandatory benefits and a host of other things --- have been imposed with such a marvellously deft touch I don't. >that they shouldn't cause persistent failure of labor markets to clear, it is possible to dream up other reasons that might conceivably explain the observed outcome of historically high long term unemployment. Not everyone finds those explanations convincing, though. Whether you like the fact that our economy is putzed around by central planners is a different topic. I'll approach this with the foregone conclusion that it's what we're stuck with, and that we have to find a way to live with it. Actually, central planning has little to do with the obvious necessity that the people who live in and around our communities must be able to support themselves, and if they cannot; then that problem will sort itself out either through social programs paid by taxes, charity, the population's mobility, or as a last resort theft and violence.

danielweber 13y ago

Not all jobs are supposed to be able to support a family of 4 at a middle-class lifestyle on 40 hours a week. What jobs are teenagers supposed to have? We need to have entry-level jobs for people who are just getting started in the labor market, whose labor isn't worth that much because they are still working on basic job skills, like showing up to work on time sober. FYI: I don't think raising the minimum wage just a buck is going to have any significant downsides. We need to remember that there can be people whose labor isn't worth that new minimum wage, though. There is something to be said about an employer having 3 $8-an-hour employees versus 2 $12-an-hour employees.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Not all jobs are supposed to be able to support a family of 4 at a middle-class lifestyle on 40 hours a week. Sophistry. Come on, you can do better than that. >What jobs are teenagers supposed to have? They can mow yards, build crappy websites with PHP, Lemonade stands, etc. I don't know, nor do I particularly care. Teenagers aren't a significant part of the economy. For my part, I worked at all kinds of crap as a teenager, never making as little as the minimum wage, carefully saving up thousands of dollars (really, I was a tight fisted teenager). I pissed away lots of chances to have fun, only to face the realization that my years of constant after-school employment hadn't even netted me enough money for a single year of room, board, and tuition at a state college. >We need to have entry-level jobs for people who are just getting started in the labor market, If it isn't worth paying someone a livable wage, then it obviously isn't an essential need. That's basic econ telling you to stop wasting your time. >whose labor isn't worth that much because they are still working on basic job skills, like showing up to work on time sober. Vocational school, and probationary employment seem sufficient to me. >FYI: I don't think raising the minimum wage just a buck is going to have any significant downsides. Me neither. One might even argue for locales to define a minimum wage, maybe somehow indexed to the cost of living, as at least one has. >We need to remember that there can be people whose labor isn't worth that new minimum wage, though. Are you referring to mentally and physically disabled people? There is a gov't program to subsidize their wages, which still allows employers (like Goodwill Industries) to abuse them arbitrarily (but supposedly based upon an objective metric of productivity). >There is something to be said about an employer having 3 $8-an-hour employees versus 2 $12-an-hour employees. Is there? Please say it.