Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[Sibirsky]

Furthermore how are you going to implement $2.50 an hour a wage and not see any problems from doing that?

Well if you take that figure literally, if the market value for the job is $2.50 then it is a fair exchange of labor. Most likely scenario is that it's a kid looking to make a few bucks on the side. As Chicago School economist Milton Friedman said in Free to Choose, minimum wage makes teenagers and uneducated minorities unemployable, as their skills are not valued high enough to make their employment realistic.

However, if this were the case, an accompanying change in monetary/fiscal/budgetary policy in the United States would drive the consumer goods price index/cost of living index down to an equilibrium where such a wage would in fact be quite fair, especially for a part-time, unskilled laborer.

Young people have low skills due to inexperience and immaturity. The results?

Unemployment rate 9.1%
Unemployment rate for 16-19 years old 24.2%

[EnragedMaldivians]

As far as I'm aware, the minimum wage is set at the amount a full-time worker would have to earn to pay for basic necessities.

When you create a minimum wage law, you establish the standard that no-one's labor value is less than what it takes for them to support themselves.

And yes, I do realize it might result in some overall loss of jobs. But as far as I figure, if you're not going to pay someone enough to live, why hire them at all?

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

It didn't have much effect on the U.K economy when they implemented it. Seems to me that it doesn't do much harm, except to the very young, or unskilled portion of the work force; a rather miniscule portion of it. That being said, it's completely useless at adressing the issue of poverty.

[The Black Forrest]

Furthermore how are you going to implement $2.50 an hour a wage and not see any problems from doing that?

Well if you take that figure literally, if the market value for the job is $2.50 then it is a fair exchange of labor. Most likely scenario is that it's a kid looking to make a few bucks on the side. As Chicago School economist Milton Friedman said in Free to Choose, minimum wage makes teenagers and uneducated minorities unemployable, as their skills are not valued high enough to make their employment realistic.

However, if this were the case, an accompanying change in monetary/fiscal/budgetary policy in the United States would drive the consumer goods price index/cost of living index down to an equilibrium where such a wage would in fact be quite fair, especially for a part-time, unskilled laborer.

Problem is I didn't see prices dropping with amount of unemployment that has gone down.

In fact prices increased in many things.

And now they are going up more(example, coke 20 pack and 8 packs for the costs of what was the 24 and 12 pack).

[Sibirsky]

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

It didn't have much effect on the U.K economy when they implemented it. Seems to me that it doesn't do much harm, except to the very young, or unskilled portion of the work force; a rather miniscule portion of it. That being said, it's completely useless at adressing the issue of poverty.

If it's useless, why use it? Yes, in an economy like the UK or the US, a very small number of the workforce will be paid those wages. And it does hurt the low skilled. And not just in the current market. It also hurts them in the future.

A high school kid may have had a job as a gas station attendant, washing windows, filling up gas for customers, checking oil. When there were no customers he would then go and watch mechanics work on cars and learn from them. Eventually, he may become a mechanic. Those are relatively high paying jobs in the US.

Today, gas station attendants do not exist outside of a few small places. Not only has the kid lost his current job, he has lost his stepping stone to a better tomorrow.

[EnragedMaldivians]

It didn't have much effect on the U.K economy when they implemented it. Seems to me that it doesn't do much harm, except to the very young, or unskilled portion of the work force; a rather miniscule portion of it. That being said, it's completely useless at adressing the issue of poverty.

If it's useless, why use it? Yes, in an economy like the UK or the US, a very small number of the workforce will be paid those wages.

I wasn't advocating it. Just that it has very little effect on unemployment numbers either way.

[Sibirsky]

If it's useless, why use it? Yes, in an economy like the UK or the US, a very small number of the workforce will be paid those wages.

I wasn't advocating it. Just that it has very little effect on unemployment numbers either way.

It's more than just that. Please see my edit.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

As far as I'm aware, the minimum wage is set at the amount a full-time worker would have to earn to pay for basic necessities.

When you create a minimum wage law, you establish the standard that no-one's labor value is less than what it takes for them to support themselves.

And yes, I do realize it might result in some overall loss of jobs. But as far as I figure, if you're not going to pay someone enough to live, why hire them at all?

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

One issue the minimum wage attempts to address is employers who pay workers less than their productivity warrants. Yes, I'm aware that wouldn't happen in the theoretical perfectly free market, but it's happened in real life.

[Wanderjar]

People are paid based on the level of revenue they bring into a company. Ownership in the company, in many cases being an executive, means that they are the one's who have a real stake in the firm's future. They risk their own capital by investing it into the firm. They in turn do deserve a higher rate of return on that investment.

Like I said they are never overpaid.

You want to be one some day eh?

Nope. I'm training to be a Naval Officer.

[Wanderjar]

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

One issue the minimum wage attempts to address is employers who pay workers less than their productivity warrants. Yes, I'm aware that wouldn't happen in the theoretical perfectly free market, but it's happened in real life.

In that situation, workers then are free to seek employment at a firm with more competitive wages. They have the freedom to choose their place of employment. If you want to attract talent and skill, you pay for it. It's true in sports teams, and it's true in automanufacturing too.

[Sibirsky]

Well if you take that figure literally, if the market value for the job is $2.50 then it is a fair exchange of labor. Most likely scenario is that it's a kid looking to make a few bucks on the side. As Chicago School economist Milton Friedman said in Free to Choose, minimum wage makes teenagers and uneducated minorities unemployable, as their skills are not valued high enough to make their employment realistic.

However, if this were the case, an accompanying change in monetary/fiscal/budgetary policy in the United States would drive the consumer goods price index/cost of living index down to an equilibrium where such a wage would in fact be quite fair, especially for a part-time, unskilled laborer.

Problem is I didn't see prices dropping with amount of unemployment that has gone down.

In fact prices increased in many things.

And now they are going up more(example, coke 20 pack and 8 packs for the costs of what was the 24 and 12 pack).

He didn't say prices should have gone down with the current US fiscal and monetary policy.

[Sibirsky]

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

One issue the minimum wage attempts to address is employers who pay workers less than their productivity warrants. Yes, I'm aware that wouldn't happen in the theoretical perfectly free market, but it's happened in real life.

Then another employer can offer them more and they would take the job.

And employee is worth (based on productivity) $8 an hour, but is only being paid $6. I offer him $7 and he takes the job. Problem solved.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

One issue the minimum wage attempts to address is employers who pay workers less than their productivity warrants. Yes, I'm aware that wouldn't happen in the theoretical perfectly free market, but it's happened in real life.

In that situation, workers then are free to seek employment at a firm with more competitive wages. They have the freedom to choose their place of employment. If you want to attract talent and skill, you pay for it. It's true in sports teams, and it's true in automanufacturing too.

I thought you might go there. So let's take an example from this thread.

I employ a person at the minimum wage. I pay him $7.25/hr (the minimum wage). The maximum I am willing to pay him is $7.50/hr but he did not negotiate that wage. You raise the minimum wage to $7.80/hr. I lay him off.

Raising the minimum wage hurts the working class.

All right, now what if this person (let's call them "Joe" per established precedent) had productivity such that the business owner would be willing to pay him $8.00/hr. but he did not negotiate that wage due to various market imperfections (the example above clearly demonstrates that workers are not necessarily aware of the precise value of their labor).

Then if the wage went up from $7.25/hr to $7.80/hr, the owner would still be profiting from employing Joe (just less). Joe would be able to afford the necessities of life (the increase in the price of which most likely triggered the minimum wage rising). Clearly he would then be benefited by the minimum wage increase, no?

[The Black Forrest]

Like I said they are never overpaid.

You want to be one some day eh?

Nope. I'm training to be a Naval Officer.

Had a stint in aero-defense. Knew more then a few who went on to be execs.

[The Black Forrest]

One issue the minimum wage attempts to address is employers who pay workers less than their productivity warrants. Yes, I'm aware that wouldn't happen in the theoretical perfectly free market, but it's happened in real life.

Then another employer can offer them more and they would take the job.

And employee is worth (based on productivity) $8 an hour, but is only being paid $6. I offer him $7 and he takes the job. Problem solved.

Unless things have changed; there wasn't that much of a disparity salaries in my day. So problem not really solved especially when considering the size of hte labor pool out of work and the amount of work being exported even now........

[Northern Dem Canada]

You really can't lower minimum wage, since that could cause a complete collapse in our structure after we have had it for so long. I suggest making outsourcing illegal, highly increasing tarrifs and taking out welfare. I know this is getting a little off topic but i'm only 13 and i've talked over politics so much with my parents, I know more about it then them, and I came up with something I would do if I was president. Tell me what you think.

[1] Illegalize outsourcing

[2] Greatly increase tarrifs to where American companies can compete

[3] Stop all foreign aid (US contribuation numbers somewhere over a few billion annualy)

[4] Give notice that all welfare will be cut in a year.

[5] Use money from foreign aid to give land grants to companies to build factories, offices, or places of work.

[6] 1 year later, pull all troops from middle east and use the money from welfare to further promote land grants so that incoming soldiers will not become unemployed.

That's just a little part of it, since I already know this is going off topic, feedback?

[Northern Dem Canada]

tag

[Rainbows and Rivers]

You really can't lower minimum wage, since that could cause a complete collapse in our structure after we have had it for so long. I suggest making outsourcing illegal, highly increasing tarrifs and taking out welfare. I know this is getting a little off topic but i'm only 13 and i've talked over politics so much with my parents, I know more about it then them, and I came up with something I would do if I was president. Tell me what you think.

[1] Illegalize outsourcing

[2] Greatly increase tarrifs to where American companies can compete

Okay. You have now created economic inefficiency and drastically raised prices of most consumer products. The losses to consumers are considerably greater than the gains made by producers.

I ain't voting for you.

[Sibirsky]

All right, now what if this person (let's call them "Joe" per established precedent) had productivity such that the business owner would be willing to pay him $8.00/hr. but he did not negotiate that wage due to various market imperfections (the example above clearly demonstrates that workers are not necessarily aware of the precise value of their labor).

Then if the wage went up from $7.25/hr to $7.80/hr, the owner would still be profiting from employing Joe (just less). Joe would be able to afford the necessities of life (the increase in the price of which most likely triggered the minimum wage rising). Clearly he would then be benefited by the minimum wage increase, no?

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

[The Black Forrest]

All right, now what if this person (let's call them "Joe" per established precedent) had productivity such that the business owner would be willing to pay him $8.00/hr. but he did not negotiate that wage due to various market imperfections (the example above clearly demonstrates that workers are not necessarily aware of the precise value of their labor).

Then if the wage went up from $7.25/hr to $7.80/hr, the owner would still be profiting from employing Joe (just less). Joe would be able to afford the necessities of life (the increase in the price of which most likely triggered the minimum wage rising). Clearly he would then be benefited by the minimum wage increase, no?

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

And yet joe is going to be more productive at $2.50 an hour?

[Greater Cabinda]

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

And yet joe is going to be more productive at $2.50 an hour?

Of course. Especially after he works an 80 hr week to make enough money to feed himself.

[Sibirsky]

You really can't lower minimum wage, since that could cause a complete collapse in our structure after we have had it for so long. I suggest making outsourcing illegal, highly increasing tarrifs and taking out welfare. I know this is getting a little off topic but i'm only 13 and i've talked over politics so much with my parents, I know more about it then them, and I came up with something I would do if I was president. Tell me what you think.

[1] Illegalize outsourcing

Effect: Increase cost of living. Decrease insourcing jobs. Decrease American jobs at outsourcing companies. Lower wages. Net job losses.

[2] Greatly increase tarrifs to where American companies can compete

Kill American exporters. Protect the industries protected by tariffs at the expense of everyone else. Increase the cost of the protected industries products, killing other industries that rely on them. Net job losses. m

[3] Stop all foreign aid (US contribuation numbers somewhere over a few billion annualy)

Ok.

[4] Give notice that all welfare will be cut in a year.

What about the poor, the low skilled, those that cannot work due to health reasons?

[5] Use money from foreign aid to give land grants to companies to build factories, offices, or places of work.

Why do they need grants? They make money. Taxpayers should not be paying for their real estate.

[6] 1 year later, pull all troops from middle east and use the money from welfare to further promote land grants so that incoming soldiers will not become unemployed.

See above for land grants. Otherwise ok.

That's just a little part of it, since I already know this is going off topic, feedback?

Trying to control the market always causes more problems than it solves. Let it do it's job.

[Sibirsky]

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

And yet joe is going to be more productive at $2.50 an hour?

No. Joe is such a good guy, he is going to pay his employer $2.50/hr for the job.

IOW, wtf are you talking about?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

All right, now what if this person (let's call them "Joe" per established precedent) had productivity such that the business owner would be willing to pay him $8.00/hr. but he did not negotiate that wage due to various market imperfections (the example above clearly demonstrates that workers are not necessarily aware of the precise value of their labor).

Then if the wage went up from $7.25/hr to $7.80/hr, the owner would still be profiting from employing Joe (just less). Joe would be able to afford the necessities of life (the increase in the price of which most likely triggered the minimum wage rising). Clearly he would then be benefited by the minimum wage increase, no?

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

Depending on the proportion of Joes to Jameses in the economy, this might be a net positive outcome.

[The Black Forrest]

And yet joe is going to be more productive at $2.50 an hour?

No. Joe is such a good guy, he is going to pay his employer $2.50/hr for the job.

IOW, wtf are you talking about?

You and your ilk talk about wage reductions and how productivity will be better?

I'm still trying to see how that will happen.....

[Sibirsky]

Joe would be profiting at the expense of James. James, who's productivity is only $7.50/hr has now lost his job.

The market is perfectly able to determine prices. Including labor. Trying to control it, has never worked better than letting it work.

Depending on the proportion of Joes to Jameses in the economy, this might be a net positive outcome.

It is never a net positive. Attempting to control the market has never worked.