Why the minimum wage cannot help.

[Grave_n_idle]

Real world. If you are making minimum wage, chances are you are in high school. No family to feed. Not even yourself to feed.

Horseshit.

I know, because I worked minimum wage for several years, here in the sunny USA. Because I was an immigrant, and that was my entry point into the workforce.

Real world. Your arguments suggest you've never experienced it.

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Yes, because removing the minimum wage will give us zero unemployment, just like it was before the minimum wage was brought in, right?

Of course not. But it would increase employment. Where are the movie theater ushers? Where are the gas station attendants? Priced out of existence.

[Inherentjoydom]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

You admit to trolling, as your defence to being underage?

No my defense was that my motives were not to be annoying rather to play a practical joke.

[Qwcasd]

Feel free to take a job at $1/hour, see how that works for you.

Hey, we all know how happy and prosperous those sweatshop workers in China and India are! Why they're just rolling in dough! They're not worked to death for very little, nope, not at all!

They're rolling in enough dough to save 40-50% of it.

I have seen you say that before. I want a source.

Here

After going through a few links, I saw 30%-50%, and that was total national savings, that wasn't the savings rate. And I would contend that is more of a cultural thing, and less of an economic thing. Chinese people hardly ever buy a house with mortgage, most save until they have enough dosh to buy the house all at once, and while they wait, live with their parents.
And I was never arguing that the Chinese were underpaid, (most of them, and that is not to say that there isn't a lot of deplorable things happening in China, civil and economically) considering there is a shortage of labour.

That is the savings rate. In any case, my argument is that they are paid to meet their basic needs and then some. Nobody is arguing that these people are spending weekends in Macau and flying home to Beijing on private jets. Those aren't needs. Needs are met, with money left over.

No it isn't. That is just how much money is saved up total in the country... Corporations could be saving all their money, and individuals none, and the number would be the same. (Note that I am asserting that is the case) I agree with your main point though... mostly.

[Risottia]

Why the minimum wage cannot help:

Lets take the simple supply and demand system and use it here. This is a very simple graph that almost anyone can understand:
See, the grey line represents the demand of workers and the black line represents the supply of workers. Of course, this can happen in any economic situation, just fyi, cause I don't want any stupid comments popping out of you guys about how the graph does not apply to depressions, which is the case when both of them decline.
So, this graph applies to any situation.

Oversimplification and contradiction. Wow.

Lets suppose we're talking about farming. The equilibrium wage is at $4 an hour. If no one knows, the equilibrium wage means the perfect wage to set for both the worker and the employer to be happy. But what if some government comes in to place a minimum wage at $5 an hour for farmers? Lets see that graph again, with the line for minimum wage:
So, there's the yellow line which is the minimum wage and the red portion which represents: Ta Da! The unemployement. Oh my! So, since the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage by 25%, the unemployment rate should be very close to that. At 25%. So, because there's not enough employers hiring, the ones that can pay will pay exceptionally low, just low enough to meet the requirments.

Too bad that, EVEN if the government didn't set a minimum wage, some employers woulnd't be able to pay $4/hour anyway, and some workers will have needs, momentarily, that exceed the $4/hour (let's say they must pay for an hospital bill).
That's because your model is about the average values, and it doesn't take into account statistical fluctuation - which, on a countrywide scale, might translate into millions of people being unemployed or becoming "working poors".

Really, you should not limit yourself to Reaganomics.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

You admit to trolling, as your defence to being underage?

No my defense was that my motives were not to be annoying rather to play a practical joke.

When asked why you (claim you) lied about being too young to post on the forum, you said you did it to be annoying. Your own words.

Revisionist history doesn't work in this format. Your words are right there, anyone can check them.

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

So you would content that the minimum wage increases unemployment? That is arguable, and even if it was true, and would contend that it is better to have a lower poverty rate and high unemployment, then to have a lower unemployment rate, but have loads of people employed for less then subsistence wages.

Less than 2% of the labor force, more than 50% of them in high school is not loads of people.

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Yes, because removing the minimum wage will give us zero unemployment, just like it was before the minimum wage was brought in, right?

Of course not. But it would increase employment. Where are the movie theater ushers? Where are the gas station attendants? Priced out of existence.

Movie theater ushers still exist where I go the movies. And gas station attendants weren't any less prevalent back in the day then they are now. And gas stations attendants still exist in New Jersey, though that is for completely separate reasons...

[Intangelon]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Yes, because the way to win a debate is to tell your opponent that they're losing.

They're so cute when they're smug. *pats on head*

Watch fox news u liberal elitist! Down with inheritance taxes!

Uh...okay. Did anyone even mention the inheritance tax? Also, you clearly don't watch Fox News yourself -- you missed the classic talking point about the inheritance tax being called the "death tax". Gotta love it when neocons try to re-frame the debate in such patently obvious ways.

By the way, that knee-jerk reaction you just posted? Another way to tell you're 11 and parroting what Daddy or Mommy has been feeding you. *pats on head, feeds a biscuit*

Somebody needs a nap, Mister Grumpypants.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course not. But it would increase employment.

Again, false assumption.

Especially in a depressed economy, there is no intrinsic link between a lower wage and an increased workforce.

[SaintB]

Real world. If you are making minimum wage, chances are you are in high school. No family to feed. Not even yourself to feed.

Real world, thousands of adults are working in minimum wage jobs because there is no other work!

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Yes, because removing the minimum wage will give us zero unemployment, just like it was before the minimum wage was brought in, right?

Of course not. But it would increase employment. Where are the movie theater ushers? Where are the gas station attendants? Priced out of existence.

They didn't exist here before the minimum wage was introduced. In fact, it had negligible impact on employment figures in the UK. Furthermore, as GnD states, using the US example it is a false assumption those jobs would be re-created, as "efficiencies" have made them role redundant. A company won't hire more staff than it needs to in order to produce as much product as it is able to sell, however cheap and unprotected the labour may be. Arguing that they would do otherwise is patently absurd.

[Inherentjoydom]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

You admit to trolling, as your defence to being underage?

No my defense was that my motives were not to be annoying rather to play a practical joke.

When asked why you (claim you) lied about being too young to post on the forum, you said you did it to be annoying. Your own words.

Revisionist history doesn't work in this format. Your words are right there, anyone can check them.

but i miss typed and fyi i only have atrocious grammer cuz i'm typing fast

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

So you would content that the minimum wage increases unemployment? That is arguable, and even if it was true, and would contend that it is better to have a lower poverty rate and high unemployment, then to have a lower unemployment rate, but have loads of people employed for less then subsistence wages.

Less than 2% of the labor force, more than 50% of them in high school is not loads of people.

Depends on your definition of loads. 2% of 150 Million, is of course, 3 million. That's quite a lot.

[Iniika]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

Better yet, if we love it so much, why don't we marry it, huh?

[The Archregimancy]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Not if it won't feed you (and your family, if you have one).

Jeez. The sooner you people get into the real world, the sooner we can have real debates on NSG.

Real world. If you are making minimum wage, chances are you are in high school. No family to feed. Not even yourself to feed.

"Chances are"? What does Johnny Mathis have to do with this?

Seriously though, can I get some kind of proof for that repeated claim? This summer there was a conspicuous lack of teenagers working the usual minimum wage jobs, so I'm finding your assertion hard to swallow. I can't full-on claim you're wrong, but I simply have no evidence that you're right.

[Former NK Soldiers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTfmQht0AdE

[Sibirsky]

if you're bitten by a snake or chop your fucking arm off in an accident, you sort of want to survive, and that entails going to the closest doctor, not walking for five hours to find another one.

It doesn't even have to be such obscure injuries. If you get hurt in a car accident or have a heart attack, both things that literally happen to thousands of people every day, you don't really have the luxury of shopping around for a hospital, or even negotiating a rate with the closest hospital.

I'm going to have a moment of open honesty here. I have cancer. Or, more likely, had. It's probably been cut out by now.

Prior to my surgery, 2 weeks ago, I was on a drug, imatinib, marketed in the US as gleevec. The maker hold a patent on it. There is ONE manufacturer. One. No negotiation, no shopping around, no looking for the best price. If I want the drug, I pay the cost.

I have good insurance. I thankfully paid $25 a month. I took 60 pills a month for 9 months. that's 540 pills. I paid $225 for my full course of treatment. Without insurance, Imatinib costs $130 a pill.

No, that's not a typo. Not "a month", not even "a day". A pill. 540 pills. $130 a pill. Without insurance, that drug would have cost me seventy THOUSAND dollars in 9 months.

Where, exactly, am I supposed to go if I can't afford that?

I wish you well, and a full recovery.

You're supposed to address the issue of healthcare costs to have more people covered.

[Intangelon]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

More proof. Thanks!

[MacPhersons Lament]

Young Pusat,
The essence of your argument is correct, IF ALL OTHER THINGS REMAIN THE SAME. But all other things are changing constantly. This is why Economics is a Social Science instead of a REAL one. It attempts to measure the immeasurable and quantify the unquantifiable, using the concept of 'utility' in order to fudge the fact that all economics can do is to define trends and pressures from changing one single variable, with the infinite number of other variables not being allowed to vary.
Your rather static example is indeed a basic illustration of the problem with the minimum wage, but you have misidentified the amount of unemployment. It is not the red triangle, but (the number who would have been employed at $5 an hour) minus (number of people who will be employed at $4 per hour). That is to say, draw a horizontal line through the 4$ equilibrium point, and a vertical line through the $5 equilibrium point; the horizontal line from the $4 equilibrium point to the intersection with the vertical line is the number of unemployed people. It is a line, not an area.
The main real function of the minimum wage is to allow government employees to keep their jobs administering the nightmare it creates. Once you factor unearned entitlement payments into the picture, everything becomes trash. If welfare were truly workfare, then what the government would pay its workfare personnel would become the functional minimum wage.

[Intangelon]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

You admit to trolling, as your defence to being underage?

No my defense was that my motives were not to be annoying rather to play a practical joke.

Also known as trolling. Thanks again.

[Natapoc]

Proof that real economies always act in the way your pretty pictures and graphs indicate in the instance of wages?

From what I can tell you are simply drawing lines and reaching conclusions based on what you tell us these lines mean. I'm pretty sure most Austrian economists have a bit more logic/evidence behind their claims then you do although I disagree with them also.

Your argument can be summed up as follows: "Because I say so"

[New Chalcedon]

Why the minimum wage cannot help:

Lets take the simple supply and demand system and use it here. This is a very simple graph that almost anyone can understand:

See, the grey line represents the demand of workers and the black line represents the supply of workers. Of course, this can happen in any economic situation, just fyi, cause I don't want any stupid comments popping out of you guys about how the graph does not apply to depressions, which is the case when both of them decline.

So, this graph applies to any situation. Lets suppose we're talking about farming. The equilibrium wage is at $4 an hour. If no one knows, the equilibrium wage means the perfect wage to set for both the worker and the employer to be happy. But what if some government comes in to place a minimum wage at $5 an hour for farmers? Lets see that graph again, with the line for minimum wage:


So, there's the yellow line which is the minimum wage and the red portion which represents: Ta Da! The unemployement. Oh my! So, since the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage by 25%, the unemployment rate should be very close to that. At 25%. So, because there's not enough employers hiring, the ones that can pay will pay exceptionally low, just low enough to meet the requirments.

Now, imagine there's an imaginary nation called Farmtopia, (Bear with me. ) which has 500 adults potential for work in the nation's farms. Using our minimum wage into picture, there's only 375 workers in the nation. If each worker earns $4 an hour and they can produce $5.50 of labour each hour, then there should be a full $750 earned per hour by the companies. But why not? That is because of the minimum wage which makes it way more expensive to employ. There is now only a combined $187.50 and lesser supply of food, lesser supply of workers and more unemployed.

Now, lets see how taking away the minimum wage can help. By this time, all the adults will be able to be employed since the companies can now afford. Lets take the GNP of the nation now. Since they're 375 workers and $5.50 earned per worker, there is a GNP of $2062.50 an hour. But with the minimum wage lifted, unemployment will drop and the GNP per hour will grow to $2750. That means an economic growth of 33.33% there!

Also, not to mention that since they;re more companies able to afford, they can advance technologies to improve productivity, thus increasing wages. And so on and so on. Also, thanks to the companies forming now, there will be more competition between the companies and so, they'll be willing to move thier wage per worker higher than what the minimum wage would offer! Oh, and not to mention the many more people that we'll be helping to get their bread and butter through this system.

Now, a conclusion. Even though these economics are used on a super simple society, they also apply to today's economics and economies. The mechanisms do not change. And that is all. Thank you.

Wrong from the first assumption: Labor is not broccoli, to quote my 3rd-year microeconomics lecturer, although he was applying the idea to employee relations and employment ethics, as opposed to minimum-wage laws.

It's late where I am, so I really don't have a great deal of time to go into this, but I strongly recommend you look up the chapter on labour supply curves in Robert E. Prasch's How markets work: Supply, Demand and the 'real world'. The theory is gone into in further depth (at a somewhat earlier date, although Prasch offers his data in a much more readable format, in my opinion) in Maryke Dessing's article 'Labor supply, the family and poverty: the S-shaped labor supply curve', in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Vol 49 (4) (Dec. 2002).

As a separate critique, labour is not a homogenous product, which is another area the the Chicago School's "analysis" of it fails desperately. Treating labour like a homogenous product will only result in grief, which is what you're inviting by making these sweeping generalisations.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find my own copy of that book in the chaos caused by my recent change of address - it's a damn good read, although you can skip the earlier chapters if you have a background in microeconomics, as they tend to deal with the more introductory stuff.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

Interesting, because the minimum age here is at least 13. Maybe even 14.

u have no proof that what i just said is true

Your own words are evidence. You claimed to be 11, why would you lie?

to be annoying

You admit to trolling, as your defence to being underage?

No my defense was that my motives were not to be annoying rather to play a practical joke.

Also known as trolling. Thanks again.

no it was pureley comical

[Psychotic Mongooses]

-snip-

Save your energy - he's 13 and not going to be understanding the concepts in that.