4 ms·

first of all, we are looking at it from different sides :) i was talking about the demand for jobs, not workers, and the supply of jobs. perhaps that created so

by bakhy 12y ago

first of all, we are looking at it from different sides :) i was talking about the demand for jobs, not workers, and the supply of jobs. perhaps that created some of the misunderstanding. the laptop example also illustrates the difference quite well. majority of the people need work, and they have to work, whether they like the price they will get or not. in the end they must eat. so, the demand for jobs (or, the supply of workers) cannot fall below a certain level, particularly the low skilled ones. laptops are not such a necessity, so people may choose, if conditions become too unfavorable, to simply not buy them. this is why producers, who of course want to get the highest price possible, cannot raise prices as they wish. with low-skilled labor, however, companies can lower wages as much as they like. if they reach the point where people can no longer feed themselves, people don't simply decide not to work (really?!) - we then have a revolution. your comparisons actually demonstrate this quite clearly, it really amazes me that you can compare a low skill workers quest for jobs with selling a bike on eBay without noticing any difference. "I think I'm done looking up specific numbers for you; it never makes any difference to your views." -- that's a cheap shot. i gave some arguments, you ignored them, and you're now just weaseling out. the effects of a nation-wide collective bargain, which defines a mandatory minimum wage for all sorts of professions, are pretty much the same. in fact, since many professions have pretty healthy situations in the job market, i would say that that actually is harmful in the way you described. but ultimately, i explained that i actually accept that a minimum wage may mildly increase unemployment. did you just skip that part?

glenra 12y ago
The problem is that you demand support even for claims of mine that are easy for you to verify for yourself and that you have no reason to doubt. While on the flip side you never provide any numbers of your own, so it's unbalanced. But what the heck, I'll do it one last time. >"a large fraction of minimum wage workers are teens" -- how large? source? Half of all minimum wage workers are under age 25; 62% are still enrolled in school, and the average family income of people earning minimum wage is in excess of $60,000/year. I found this out just now by googling the string "what percent of minimum wage workers are teen", which led me to these links: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-t... It is true that SOME minimum-wage workers desperately need a job. But it is also true that SOME people desperately need a laptop computer! The overall characteristics of a market - whether a market for labor or a market for laptops - aren't driven by just the few who have the most inelastic demand. Employers have to offer wages high enough that on the margin, those people who are indifferent between employers or willing to wait a little longer for "the right job offer" are inclined to accept the one being offered. This means the average job pays a lot MORE than the bare minimum that the most desperate people would be willing to accept. Even if there were no minimum wage, wages would not drop to starvation levels for that reason. In short, Malthus and Keynes were wrong to predict a "race to the bottom". We don't need a minimum wage to have high average wages, high entry-level wages or a high standard of living. (In fact, the minimum wage does far more harm than good to the lowest-skilled workers - it reduces job quality and availability, cutting off some of the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.)
- bakhy 12y ago
  ok, interesting statistics. i did not expect such a large number of teens. the average income part, the key is that it counts "families" or "households", i have seen it in another source where it stated that many of the poorest families actually earn 2-3 wages in order to reach that level, so i would not immediately jump to the conclusion that they are all that well off. "It is true that SOME minimum-wage workers desperately need a job. But it is also true that SOME people desperately need a laptop computer!" -- again, these crazy comparisons... these situations are not equal. period. such reductionism is unproductive. "Employers have to offer wages high enough that on the margin, those people who are indifferent between employers or willing to wait a little longer for "the right job offer" are inclined to accept the one being offered." -- this seems unrealistic. middle-class or up may afford that, but we're not talking about them here. and it's worth noting that the middle-class is growing smaller lately. as for the race to the bottom, it is a demonstrated reality of history, one that we have experienced, but which is easy to forget now that the problem had been solved. it drove people to revolutions, simple fact. we have progressed far since then. this neo-libertarianism seems to be an initiative to take us back, and by many indicators, since the 80s, that plan is working out.

by bakhy 12y ago

glenra 12y ago

The problem is that you demand support even for claims of mine that are easy for you to verify for yourself and that you have no reason to doubt. While on the flip side you never provide any numbers of your own, so it's unbalanced. But what the heck, I'll do it one last time. >"a large fraction of minimum wage workers are teens" -- how large? source? Half of all minimum wage workers are under age 25; 62% are still enrolled in school, and the average family income of people earning minimum wage is in excess of $60,000/year. I found this out just now by googling the string "what percent of minimum wage workers are teen", which led me to these links: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-t... It is true that SOME minimum-wage workers desperately need a job. But it is also true that SOME people desperately need a laptop computer! The overall characteristics of a market - whether a market for labor or a market for laptops - aren't driven by just the few who have the most inelastic demand. Employers have to offer wages high enough that on the margin, those people who are indifferent between employers or willing to wait a little longer for "the right job offer" are inclined to accept the one being offered. This means the average job pays a lot MORE than the bare minimum that the most desperate people would be willing to accept. Even if there were no minimum wage, wages would not drop to starvation levels for that reason. In short, Malthus and Keynes were wrong to predict a "race to the bottom". We don't need a minimum wage to have high average wages, high entry-level wages or a high standard of living. (In fact, the minimum wage does far more harm than good to the lowest-skilled workers - it reduces job quality and availability, cutting off some of the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.)

bakhy 12y ago
ok, interesting statistics. i did not expect such a large number of teens. the average income part, the key is that it counts "families" or "households", i have seen it in another source where it stated that many of the poorest families actually earn 2-3 wages in order to reach that level, so i would not immediately jump to the conclusion that they are all that well off. "It is true that SOME minimum-wage workers desperately need a job. But it is also true that SOME people desperately need a laptop computer!" -- again, these crazy comparisons... these situations are not equal. period. such reductionism is unproductive. "Employers have to offer wages high enough that on the margin, those people who are indifferent between employers or willing to wait a little longer for "the right job offer" are inclined to accept the one being offered." -- this seems unrealistic. middle-class or up may afford that, but we're not talking about them here. and it's worth noting that the middle-class is growing smaller lately. as for the race to the bottom, it is a demonstrated reality of history, one that we have experienced, but which is easy to forget now that the problem had been solved. it drove people to revolutions, simple fact. we have progressed far since then. this neo-libertarianism seems to be an initiative to take us back, and by many indicators, since the 80s, that plan is working out.