Gallup Poll: 76% of Americans would vote to raise minimum wage to $9/hr

[tsai3904]

http://i39.tinypic.com/123t7j7.png

http://i39.tinypic.com/2crom8p.png

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165794/americans-raising-minimum-wage.aspx

[cjm]

Gallop Poll: 76% of Americans do not understand supply and demand.

[green73]

Gallop Poll: Why public schools and democracy suck.

[Influenza]

Why stop at 9$? Raise it to 60$/hour and then everyone can have cool cars and big houses!

[cjm]

Why stop at 9$? Raise it to 60$/hour and then everyone can have cool cars and big houses!

+rep for awesomesauce. Big house, here I come!

[HOLLYWOOD]

They can raise it to $10, $12, say $15... still in poverty, still collecting welfare subsidies.

Once you get to a middle level wage, the State and Federal Government screw you with their progressive tax system

[phill4paul]

Why stop at 9$? Raise it to 60$/hour and then everyone can have cool cars and big houses!

Let's go for broke! Honestly, broke is where we are headed.

[matt0611]

76% of americans can't think beyond 1-step.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uSgsELZvL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Should be required reading in all schools.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wonder how much of the 22% who oppose do so because they feel $9 an hour isn't high enough.

[aGameOfThrones]

If you're against this you hate children.

[WM_in_MO]

Gallup Poll: Why we are FUCKED.

[Ender]

Gallup Poll: 76% of Americans would vote to raise minimum wage to $9/hr

That's because 76%+of Americans do not understand economics.

[JK/SEA]

round it off to 20 bucks, that way we won't have to worry about it for a few months...:rolleyes:

[Lucille]

Gallup didn't ask this because then they wouldn't get the answer they want but


however, support flips and 56 percent oppose (http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/most-americans-favor-raising-the-minimum) if it caused employers to lay off workers. All policies come with a price and polling questions constantly phrased as benefits-only propositions will continue to overestimate support. Instead, questions should measure what Americans would be willing to give up in order to raise the federal minimum wage.

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/eekins/2013_11/minwage/MinWage.jpg?h=471&w=275

People are stupid.

Oh and FU, Frank!

[Prog Snob]

Sure let's put more stress on small businesses!

[Christian Liberty]

I wanted to say 76% of Americans are stupid. Than I figured out it was probably closer to 96%:p

[SilentBull]

Minimum wage laws have to be the best example of economic stupidity. And the cowardly GOP sucks so bad that most people have probably never even heard an argument for getting rid of the minimum wage and why it causes unemployment.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why stop at 9$? Raise it to 60$/hour and then everyone can have cool cars and big houses!

More like heating fuel, wall paper and TP...

Zimbabwe ain't got nothing on us!

-t

[seapilot]

Gallup Poll: 76% of Americans would vote to raise minimum wage to $9/hr

That's because 76%+of Americans do not understand economics.

That's good for the Financial manipulators. If it was the other way around 76% understood economics they would be in big trouble.

Unfortunately they wont all learn anytime soon, but seeds can be still planted in a few percentage.

[Brian4Liberty]

Over 90% of Democrats support higher minimum wage. I'd wager that the majority of them also favor increased immigration and amnesty. Supply and demand. That's the shortest economic lesson, yet they still don't get it.

[Keith and stuff]

Why stop at 9$? Raise it to 60$/hour and then everyone can have cool cars and big houses!

In SeaTac, WA, they just voted to increase it to $15.

[FrankRep]

Why am I never polled for these type of questions?

[Keith and stuff]

BTW, if anyone is interested in what the minimum wage is in various states, here you go.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

6 states don't have minimum wages for most workers. Those states are:
AL, LA, MS, NH, SC, TN

Though, in the 5 southern states without minimum wages for most workers, unemployment is actually quite high so obviously, this is just 1 part of the economic/employment picture.

[Paulbot99]

76% of Americans would print more money too.

[asurfaholic]

So 24% of people "get" it. Not bad.

The rest of them think that means a bunch of people are getting a raise. Of course they don't realize that now everybody is going to see higher prices on pretty much everything so the only people who win are those on the receiving end of govt special treatment. More wages = more taxes = more special interest dough.

[gwax23]

BTW, if anyone is interested in what the minimum wage is in various states, here you go.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

6 states don't have minimum wages for most workers. Those states are:
AL, LA, MS, NH, SC, TN

Though, in the 5 southern states without minimum wages for most workers, unemployment is actually quite high so obviously, this is just 1 part of the economic/employment picture.

Again Ive said this in other threads. The States have ZERO control over the minimum wage. They cant get rid of it or make it lower than the federal standard. It HAS to be the federal standard (7.25). They only are allowed to Raise it even higher than it is.

If the states had true control places like Mississippi and Louisiana (No minimum wage ) would have far lower unemployment than they do now.

[Keith and stuff]

Again Ive said this in other threads. The States have ZERO control over the minimum wage. They cant get rid of it or make it lower than the federal standard. It HAS to be the federal standard (7.25). They only are allowed to Raise it even higher than it is.

If the states had true control places like Mississippi and Louisiana (No minimum wage ) would have far lower unemployment than they do now.
So we agree that the state have a great deal of control, when it comes to increasing it above the federal level. How many states, 15? 20? 25? have increased it above the federal level. Either way, it's been a lot and I guess more will continue to do so. So it is worth looking at. But you are right. I agree with you. Maybe we should be looking at states without/ state with a lower than federal level/ and states with the federal level VS. state with a higher than federal level when comparing.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Truth be told whether the minimum wage is raised to $9, $20, $50 or eliminated entirely, the lowest skilled workers will still be poor. If, as an adult, the only value you have to an employer is the government mandated wage, you have made some poor decisions in your life.

[Keith and stuff]

Truth be told whether the minimum wage is raised to $9, $20, $50 or eliminated entirely, the lowest skilled workers will still be poor. If, as an adult, the only value you have to an employer is the government mandated wage, you have made some poor decisions in your life.

And there is nothing wrong with being poor. Minimum wage (which is the federal rate since there isn't a state rate) is plenty enough money to afford to live where I live. I know people paying $150 and $200 a rent in month. Add to that no income or sales tax and you have affordable living.

[limequat]

So if we raise minimum wage to $1,000,000 / hr then everyone would be rich and could totally retire at the end of the end of the week. Then we can just play Angry Birds all day and buy our shit from China. Eliminates SOOO many problems. No more crime, no poverty. WHY CAN'T EVERYONE ELSE SEE THIS???? People are so dumb.

[gwax23]

So we agree that the state have a great deal of control, when it comes to increasing it above the federal level. How many states, 15? 20? 25? have increased it above the federal level. Either way, it's been a lot and I guess more will continue to do so. So it is worth looking at. But you are right. I agree with you. Maybe we should be looking at states without/ state with a lower than federal level/ and states with the federal level VS. state with a higher than federal level when comparing.

Yes.

On some other forums Im registered at these leftists idiots say "Well Louisiana has no minimum wage but its unemployment is higher than (insert democrat state here)" they dont realize the federal minimum applies everywhere, so its not a good comparison. Further states that are poorer and have larger % of minorities, young, and people with a high school degree or less, tend to be more effected by the minimum wage law than say states where the median household income is higher, higher percentage with college degrees etc.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And there is nothing wrong with being poor. Minimum wage (which is the federal rate since there isn't a state rate) is plenty enough money to afford to live where I live. I know people paying $150 and $200 a rent in month. Add to that no income or sales tax and you have affordable living.

The problem is people at that level of income receive the EITC which is another form of welfare. And I would guess that most people in that situation are also receiving other gov't benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc). So while, they might choose to be poor by working only a minimum wage job, they are leeching off a system which supplements the income of those who have failed to (or chose to) not do what it takes in a society to earn a decent living.

So there is nothing wrong with being poor, provided that the person choosing to be poor refuses all government benefits, and returns their EITC at the end of the tax year.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The problem is people at that level of income receive the EITC which is another form of welfare. And I would guess that most people in that situation are also receiving other gov't benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc). So while, they might choose to be poor by working only a minimum wage job, they are leeching off a system which supplements the income of those who have failed to (or chose to) not do what it takes in a society to earn a decent living.

So there is nothing wrong with being poor, provided that the person choosing to be poor refuses all government benefits, and returns their EITC at the end of the tax year.

In a free society, those working menial jobs would have a far better chance of making ends meet than a person working a menial job in our current society. No need to demonize the poor; they didn't create society as it exists now.

[CaptLouAlbano]

In a free society, those working menial jobs would have a far better chance of making ends meet than a person working a menial job in our current society. No need to demonize the poor; they didn't create society as it exists now.

Going back as long as I can remember, minimum wage jobs were always for the unskilled. But turn the clock back 20 or 30 years, minimum wage jobs were primarily held by teenagers, as it was a first step to the working world. Today though, we have an entire class of people that are unskilled, uneducated and worth very little to employers. It is due to choices they have made in their lives. Regardless of the system, if one is a good employee and possesses skills and talents that are valuable to employers, they will rise above the minimum wage jobs. I think you would have a hard time finding someone that is educated, skilled, talented, and a hard worker with an excellent employment record that is stuck in minimum wage jobs.

[juleswin]

I would like to ask those people saying the minimum wage should be increased if they would at least allow a poor person with no skill whatsoever and no employer would touch or a teenager to make lower than the minimum wage. If the answer is no, then I'll know they are not just stupid but wicked.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Going back as long as I can remember, minimum wage jobs were always for the unskilled. But turn the clock back 20 or 30 years, minimum wage jobs were primarily held by teenagers, as it was a first step to the working world. Today though, we have an entire class of people that are unskilled, uneducated and worth very little to employers. It is due to choices they have made in their lives. Regardless of the system, if one is a good employee and possesses skills and talents that are valuable to employers, they will rise above the minimum wage jobs. I think you would have a hard time finding someone that is educated, skilled, talented, and a hard worker with an excellent employment record that is stuck in minimum wage jobs.

Someone making $13 an hour working overnights at Walmart is working a menial job. That's a fair bit higher than minimum wage. In a free society, one would be able to support themselves with such a position. In many places in the US, thanks to obscene costs of living, they cannot.

It's not just minimum wage earners who are hurt by government intervention. It's all wage earning individuals. Every one of them has a lesser earning capacity thanks to government. Rather than blame them for their lessened earning potential, let's blame the entity responsible for lowering their ceiling.

[RickyJ]

76% of Americans would print more money too.

One tenth of one percent essentially do and live like kings.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Someone making $13 an hour working overnights at Walmart is working a menial job. That's a fair bit higher than minimum wage. In a free society, one would be able to support themselves with such a position. In many places in the US, thanks to obscene costs of living, they cannot.

It's not just minimum wage earners who are hurt by government intervention. It's all wage earning individuals. Every one of them has a lesser earning capacity thanks to government. Rather than blame them for their lessened earning potential, let's blame the entity responsible for lowering their ceiling.

Oh I agree that the system sucks, we are all hurt by big government. But I am referring to someone earning minimum wage. Someone working at Walmart making $13 an hour is not earning minimum wage, even though the job is menial.

Nonetheless, if someone is 40 years old and the best job they can attain is a clerk at a mini market earning $7.25 an hour, they have made some choices in their life that have effected their ability to earn money. Eliminate all government, and those folks will still be at the bottom of the pecking order. Granted they may have an easier time making ends meet than they do today, but they will still be at the bottom of the rung.

[CaptLouAlbano]

One tenth of one percent essentially do and live like kings.

Better solution is to have a business that essentially prints money for you. When one works, they are limited to their earning potential and the amount of hours they can labor in a day. When one owns a business, their earning potential is nearly unlimited. One thing that was taught to me at a very early age. A man told me, there are two types of people in this world: those that sign paychecks on the back, and those that sign them on the front. Be the one that signs them on the front, and you will never have to worry about money. He was right.

[Lucille]

The Biggest Threat To Minimum Wage Restaurant Workers Everywhere?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-12/biggest-threat-minimum-wage-restaurant-workers-everywhere


Over the past year, unionized restaurant workers across numerous fast-food chains but mostly at McDonalds, expressed their dissatisfaction with compensation levels by striking at increasingly more frequent intervals - a sentiment that has been facilitated by the president himself and his ever more frequent appeals for a raise in the minimum wage. Unfortunately, as we have pointed out previously, in the context of corporations that have given up on growing the top line (as virtually all free cash goes into stock buybacks and dividends and none into growth capex), and in pursuit of a rising bottom line, employee wages are the one variable cost that corporations will touch last of all. But what's worse, these same unionized employees have zero negotiating leverage.

Perhaps nowhere is this more visible than in the recent strategy of smoothie retailer Jamba Juice, which in order to battle a 4% drop in Q3 same store sales has decided to radically transform its entire retailing strategy by getting rid of labor, cheap, part-time or otherwise, altogether. Presenting the biggest threat to minimum-wage restaurant workers everywhere: the JambaGo self-serve machine that just made the vast majority of Jamba's employees obsolete. Coming soon to a fast-food retailer near you...

[parocks]

In a free society, those working menial jobs would have a far better chance of making ends meet than a person working a menial job in our current society. No need to demonize the poor; they didn't create society as it exists now.

Yup.

We've had the minimum wage for years and years. Periodically it goes up. Doesn't seem to hurt the economy at all. The minimum wage is supposed to keep pace with inflation. It's fallen behind, should raise it to keep up.

Very little of the extremely fd up st that we're experiencing now has anything to do, at all, with people with minimum wage jobs. There are a lot of "bad guys" you can point the finger at and say "it's your fault", or "the world would be a better place if you were dead". People making minimum wage are not those people. They're the good guys.

[CaptLouAlbano]

My son and daughter-in-law own a couple of those yogurt shops that are popping up all over the place. They have a self-serve machine that looks similar to the one in that article. It might be from that company. Their stores are about 500-750 sq ft, packed all the time and they have only two people on the floor at any given time. Huge, huge profits.

[parocks]

Oh I agree that the system sucks, we are all hurt by big government. But I am referring to someone earning minimum wage. Someone working at Walmart making $13 an hour is not earning minimum wage, even though the job is menial.

Nonetheless, if someone is 40 years old and the best job they can attain is a clerk at a mini market earning $7.25 an hour, they have made some choices in their life that have effected their ability to earn money. Eliminate all government, and those folks will still be at the bottom of the pecking order. Granted they may have an easier time making ends meet than they do today, but they will still be at the bottom of the rung.

Yes, there are smarter people and stupider people. Harder workers and lazier ones. There are people who will spy for the government, and take big paychecks for doing so, and people who won't. There are a lot of sick and evil people in the world who do evil things and make a lot of money doing that. And then there are the others, who won't do sick and evil things. They get paid a lot less. The CEO of Monsanto isn't making minimum wage. All the Fed Gov employees at the NSA are not making minimum wage.

McDonalds is not going out of business if the minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour. People are not going to stop going to drive thrus if a McChicken is no longer $1, but $1.25.

[CaptLouAlbano]

McDonalds is not going out of business if the minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour. People are not going to stop going to drive thrus if a McChicken is no longer $1, but $1.25.

Most McDonalds are independently owned. Business owners typically will cut costs before they have to raise prices.

[heavenlyboy34]

Gallup Poll: "One Reason Why We Can't Haz Our Freedomz". :(

[parocks]

Most McDonalds are independently owned. Business owners typically will cut costs before they have to raise prices.

Yeah. And that meaning what?

People are still going to use drive thrus. People aren't going to start saying "I'm going to avoid eating today because my McChicken is a little more."

Remember the economic crash of 1962, when there was runaway inflation because the minimum wage went up 20%? Right, neither do I. Because it doesn't really matter. The minimum wage goes up all the time, and the economy doesn't get crushed when it does.

With fast food, we aren't competing with China, or with slave or prison labor. Fast food restaurants all have the same pool of workers to choose from. If the minimum wage goes up for McDonalds, it goes up for Burger King. And the people who buy fast food won't care.

Remember McDonalds? In 1965, the minimum wage went up. And that minimum wage hike killed McDonalds. They went out of business. Oh, wait, that didn't happen at all. McDonalds has been doing great pretty much our entire lives. McDonalds didn't even exist before the minimum wage. McDonalds started when there was a minimum wage, and was able to become a huge company, even though there was a minimum wage, and the minimum wage kept going up. No reason to think that the minimum wage is any sort of barrier to McDs

[Keith and stuff]

Yup.

We've had the minimum wage for years and years. Periodically it goes up. Doesn't seem to hurt the economy at all. The minimum wage is supposed to keep pace with inflation. It's fallen behind, should raise it to keep up.

Gonna have to disagree 100%. Minimum wage laws hurt everyone, but especially teenagers, minorities, less educated people and the elderly. Of course, I'm not saying you hate black people or anything, but minimum wage laws by design, target young, uneducated black people. My guess is that many of the people pushing for anti-liberty policies like taxes on groceries, minimum wage increases and welfare do it because they hate black people. It's the same reason many of the early gun laws in the US were created.

Race, Politics and the Minimum Wage
Minimum-wage proponents argue that a higher wage floor will improve the standard of living for poor families. The reality is that higher labor costs reduce employment, especially for young black men.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703859304576307201724065640

[gwax23]

Yup.

We've had the minimum wage for years and years. Periodically it goes up. Doesn't seem to hurt the economy at all. The minimum wage is supposed to keep pace with inflation. It's fallen behind, should raise it to keep up.

Very little of the extremely fd up st that we're experiencing now has anything to do, at all, with people with minimum wage jobs. There are a lot of "bad guys" you can point the finger at and say "it's your fault", or "the world would be a better place if you were dead". People making minimum wage are not those people. They're the good guys.

What?

How do you have 9400 posts on this forum and decent rep while you seem to not only be in favor of the status quo minimum wage but you think it should go up?

Read a book on economics please before you spout ignorant nonsense about how the minimum wage is harmless.

Whatever book you pick please start on the chapter that deals with a little concept called "Supply and Demand" read it once and then read it again. Maybe a third time.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What?

How do you have 9400 posts on this forum and decent rep while you seem to not only be in favor of the status quo minimum wage but you think it should go up?

Read a book on economics please before you spout ignorant nonsense about how the minimum wage is harmless.

Whatever book you pick please start on the chapter that deals with a little concept called "Supply and Demand" read it once and then read it again. Maybe a third time.

A more charitable take on his posts would be that it doesn't hurt the company, which either hires fewer employees, automates more positions, or cuts costs elsewhere. But it does harm those who would have been profitable at that lower wage, since they are no longer employable.

[gwax23]

A more charitable take on his posts would be that it doesn't hurt the company, which either hires fewer employees, automates more positions, or cuts costs elsewhere. But it does harm those who would have been profitable at that lower wage, since they are no longer employable.

Charity shmarity

Of course it hurts the company, now they will fire people yes, but they will have to make do with a smaller workforce. Say they need 5 people to effectively run the place, now they will have only 3. Automation is only a realistic option for some businesses and bigger ones at that. Even if they automate its still a big investment which will cost them in the short term and still might not be as effective as an actual human.

Cutting costs where? This will only reduce the quality of the good or services this company provides if it has to cut costs to keep up with a government regulation.

This stupid law hurts everyone. The Company, consumers and the employees.

Saying "Well it just hurts the company so its not that bad" is a ridiculous line of thinking.

Im registered on a few political forums. When I go to these forums I have to read through absolute statists, left wing, progressive trash. I look forward to coming to the Ron Paul forums hoping to see fellow libertarians and freedom lovers denouncing stupid government policies such as the Minimum wage. Yet I have to cringe when I read ignorant trifle such as parocks post which is not only excusing the existing minimum wage but calling for it to be constantly raised with inflation.

The best thing that could happen to the minimum wage is that it wont keep up with inflation to the point that its become so low its effect on the workforce will be minimal. The higher its raised the more people effective as it covers more levels of productivity in the work force. There was a huge period of time the minimum wage in this country wasnt raised (30 years I think) and it became so low most companies (Including ironically McDonalds) paid more than Minimum wage. Much more.

Also I havent even brought up the moral problems with the minimum wage (Forcing people to hire people at a government set price/wage, very contradictory to freedom and a belief in property rights)

Minimum wage is such an easy economic concept to grasp, and its negative consequences are recognized by most economists (mainstream and heterodox) so its baffles me that I read defense of it on these very forums.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Charity shmarity

Of course it hurts the company, now they will fire people yes, but they will have to make do with a smaller workforce. Say they need 5 people to effectively run the place, now they will have only 3. Automation is only a realistic option for some businesses and bigger ones at that. Even if they automate its still a big investment which will cost them in the short term and still might not be as effective as an actual human.

Cutting costs where? This will only reduce the quality of the good or services this company provides if it has to cut costs to keep up with a government regulation.

This stupid law hurts everyone. The Company, consumers and the employees.

Saying "Well it just hurts the company so its not that bad" is a ridiculous line of thinking.

Im registered on a few political forums. When I go to these forums I have to read through absolute statists, left wing, progressive trash. I look forward to coming to the Ron Paul forums hoping to see fellow libertarians and freedom lovers denouncing stupid government policies such as the Minimum wage. Yet I have to cringe when I read ignorant trifle such as parocks post which is not only excusing the existing minimum wage but calling for it to be constantly raised with inflation.

The best thing that could happen to the minimum wage is that it wont keep up with inflation to the point that its become so low its effect on the workforce will be minimal. The higher its raised the more people effective as it covers more levels of productivity in the work force. There was a huge period of time the minimum wage in this country wasnt raised (30 years I think) and it became so low most companies (Including ironically McDonalds) paid more than Minimum wage. Much more.

Also I havent even brought up the moral problems with the minimum wage (Forcing people to hire people at a government set price/wage, very contradictory to freedom and a belief in property rights)

Minimum wage is such an easy economic concept to grasp, and its negative consequences are recognized by most economists (mainstream and heterodox) so its baffles me that I read defense of it on these very forums.

I agree that minimum wage laws are terrible. As are all state-imposed regulations. (I fly the black and yellow flag)

I was just trying to be charitable to parocks.

[gwax23]

I agree that minimum wage laws are terrible. As are all state-imposed regulations. (I fly the black and yellow flag)

I was just trying to be charitable to parocks.

Your too nice then.

[parocks]

What?

How do you have 9400 posts on this forum and decent rep while you seem to not only be in favor of the status quo minimum wage but you think it should go up?

Read a book on economics please before you spout ignorant nonsense about how the minimum wage is harmless.

Whatever book you pick please start on the chapter that deals with a little concept called "Supply and Demand" read it once and then read it again. Maybe a third time.

I was an economics major.

Supply and Demand. If the price of good X goes up, people will switch to good Y. But here, all the prices at all the fast food would go up.

We don't live in a free market.

All Econ 101 about how prices are arrived at is wrong. Yes, if every purchase was bushels of wheat, and it was the 1800s, you would be right.

What does Econ 101 say about the power of brands, the power of monopolies and oligopolies to set whatever price they feel like?

You just ignoring that? Or maybe you weren't an Econ major?

All of these theories, all of these economic fixes, are all dependent on there actually being a free market. And there just isn't one.

[parocks]

Your too nice then.

You think we live in a free market.

You're delusional.

[parocks]

They're just going to raise prices.

All the competitors are facing the exact same labor situations.

There is no competition Chinese slave labor is not manning fast food joints in the US.

McDonalds charges whatever it feels like. It's an oligopoly. Do you even recognize that? Or were you not an Econ major?




Charity shmarity

Of course it hurts the company, now they will fire people yes, but they will have to make do with a smaller workforce. Say they need 5 people to effectively run the place, now they will have only 3. Automation is only a realistic option for some businesses and bigger ones at that. Even if they automate its still a big investment which will cost them in the short term and still might not be as effective as an actual human.

Cutting costs where? This will only reduce the quality of the good or services this company provides if it has to cut costs to keep up with a government regulation.

This stupid law hurts everyone. The Company, consumers and the employees.

Saying "Well it just hurts the company so its not that bad" is a ridiculous line of thinking.

Im registered on a few political forums. When I go to these forums I have to read through absolute statists, left wing, progressive trash. I look forward to coming to the Ron Paul forums hoping to see fellow libertarians and freedom lovers denouncing stupid government policies such as the Minimum wage. Yet I have to cringe when I read ignorant trifle such as parocks post which is not only excusing the existing minimum wage but calling for it to be constantly raised with inflation.

The best thing that could happen to the minimum wage is that it wont keep up with inflation to the point that its become so low its effect on the workforce will be minimal. The higher its raised the more people effective as it covers more levels of productivity in the work force. There was a huge period of time the minimum wage in this country wasnt raised (30 years I think) and it became so low most companies (Including ironically McDonalds) paid more than Minimum wage. Much more.

Also I havent even brought up the moral problems with the minimum wage (Forcing people to hire people at a government set price/wage, very contradictory to freedom and a belief in property rights)

Minimum wage is such an easy economic concept to grasp, and its negative consequences are recognized by most economists (mainstream and heterodox) so its baffles me that I read defense of it on these very forums.

[Keith and stuff]

All the competitors are facing the exact same labor situations.

Not at all. McDonald's competes with vending machines, grocery stores, farmer's markets, seed stores and so on. People want to eat but depending on how much food costs, they will get different amounts of it in different ways.

And remember, the government encouraging companies to increase prices is a really bad thing for people that live on saving for example. It lowers the quality of life for elderly people. Personally, I don't want to hurt people just because they are children or elderly or don't work. But increasing prices does just that.

[Grubb556]

People like to rail on the socialist Scandinavian countries, but they don't actually have a minimal wage.

[gwax23]

You think we live in a free market.

You're delusional.

What in heavens name are you talking about?

I dont think we live in a free market but that doesnt stop me for advocating a return to a free market economy.

Only one who is delusional is you.


They're just going to raise prices.

All the competitors are facing the exact same labor situations.

There is no competition Chinese slave labor is not manning fast food joints in the US.

McDonalds charges whatever it feels like. It's an oligopoly. Do you even recognize that? Or were you not an Econ major?

Theyll only raise prices if they can afford too. Some will cut costs and thus quality (including reducing workforce) some will do a combination of both, and who knows maybe some firms who run on tight margins will shut down completely.

Not all competitors where created equal. A big business with ties to government will not only be able to deal with new regulations imposed on businesses (such as minimum wage) they will actively encourage it to wipe out smaller competitors who cant deal with the regulatory burden.

After you done reading up on supply and demand I suggest another interesting concept for you to research on. Its called "Regulatory Capture"

What I can gather from your ever increasing ridiculous posts is that since the US does not currently have a perfect free market that we should give up on trying to promote free market policies? Or is it that since we dont have a free market a minimum wage doesnt have any effect?

Both are equally wrong. Minimum wage does have an effect even if we are living in a crony capitalist state. Again read up on supply and demand to get a better grasp of this.

[parocks]

A more charitable take on his posts would be that it doesn't hurt the company, which either hires fewer employees, automates more positions, or cuts costs elsewhere. But it does harm those who would have been profitable at that lower wage, since they are no longer employable.

Have you actually looked at the real world?

Are robots taking my orders at the drive-thru?

No.

Those are people. People probably on minimum wage.

And they've been working at McDonalds for years.

Or people like them.

The minimum wage was there when Ray Kroc opened the first McDonalds.

And year after year the minimum wage goes up, and yet McDonalds stays in business.

How can this be? Certainly by now, McDonalds should be full of robots. They aren't.

It's pretty amazing that you miss 1) cut hours and 2) raise prices when you're trying to determine what stores would do if the minimum wage goes up.

Actually, probably nothing. Or, whatever they ususally do when the minimum wage goes up. And the minimum wage always goes up, because there's inflation. And the idea is for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation.

The people who work at McDonalds are benefit from the minimum wage going up. McDonalds has no robots, and is not about to replace their workers with robots. So, there will be minimum wage workers working there. And they all will get a few dollars more in their paychecks. Or, maybe they get the same amount, but work a couple hours less.

Don't forget, free market principles DO NOT APPLY to McDonalds. In a free market, a McChicken would cost exactly the amount is costs to make. If someone can make a McChicken for a penny less, everyone would go to that other place, because McDonalds is too expensive. That's how the free market works. They didn't have expensive Super Bowl ads to pay for in the "free market" days. In a free market, there is no "McChicken". There are only Chicken sandwiches. They're commodities, and people buy the cheapest one. Period. That is how the free market works. Today, McDonalds spends a ton of advertising to tell us that their food is different in some real way from BKs food. This does not happen in a free market.

[Southron]

40% of US workers make less than the 1968 minimum wage and that's just using official inflation statistics. It really hasn't kept pace with inflation.

[parocks]

You make arguments that are based on what would happen if the minimum wage goes up. And if prices were actually set by the market, and not by the whims of executives at McDonalds, you might be right. But that's not how it works today.

McD has kept growing

I was an econ major.

Supply and Demand do not set the price at McDonalds.

Excecutives do. And the supply and demand are a small factor.

I'm quite familiar with regulatory capture. You think Monsanto has minimum wage workers? Anywhere in the US, doing anything?

I appreciate that you have some sort of passing familiarity with some basic economic concepts.

How about Oligopoly? Have you looked into that one?

How oligopolies price their goods?

The minimum wage should keep pace with inflation.


What in heavens name are you talking about?

I dont think we live in a free market but that doesnt stop me for advocating a return to a free market economy.

Only one who is delusional is you.



Theyll only raise prices if they can afford too. Some will cut costs and thus quality (including reducing workforce) some will do a combination of both, and who knows maybe some firms who run on tight margins will shut down completely.

Not all competitors where created equal. A big business with ties to government will not only be able to deal with new regulations imposed on businesses (such as minimum wage) they will actively encourage it to wipe out smaller competitors who cant deal with the regulatory burden.

After you done reading up on supply and demand I suggest another interesting concept for you to research on. Its called "Regulatory Capture"

What I can gather from your ever increasing ridiculous posts is that since the US does not currently have a perfect free market that we should give up on trying to promote free market policies? Or is it that since we dont have a free market a minimum wage doesnt have any effect?

Both are equally wrong. Minimum wage does have an effect even if we are living in a crony capitalist state. Again read up on supply and demand to get a better grasp of this.

[parocks]

40% of US workers make less than the 1968 minimum wage and that's just using official inflation statistics. It really hasn't kept pace with inflation.

Right on.

I think the minimum wage should keep pace with inflation. It hasn't been.

[RickyJ]

I am against a minimum wage law, but if there is going to be one and so many want it raised a mere 2 bucks then you know politicians are going to do it so to make a big issue over this will not win new voters to our cause. There are more important issues such as the Federal Reserve and the influence AIPAC has over Congress.

[mad cow]

Parocks Quote:In a free market, a McChicken would cost exactly the amount is costs to make.

And you were an econ major?

[parocks]

Not at all. McDonald's competes with vending machines, grocery stores, farmer's markets, seed stores and so on. People want to eat but depending on how much food costs, they will get different amounts of it in different ways.

And remember, the government encouraging companies to increase prices is a really bad thing for people that live on saving for example. It lowers the quality of life for elderly people. Personally, I don't want to hurt people just because they are children or elderly or don't work. But increasing prices does just that.

Yeah, that old person having to pay $1.10 for a McChicken is a real back-breaker.

You ever hear of COLA? Cost Of Living Adjustment? It's the automatic raise that elderly people get every year with their social security.

Retirees to get 1.5 percent COLA in 2014
Federal and military retirees and Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2014. The COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index for September, a key statistic announced Oct. 30 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://federaldaily.com/articles/2013/10/30/retirees-to-get-1.5-percent-cola-in-2014.aspx

A lot of old people are pretty rich already. And they get raises.

But poor people on minimum wage - none for you. Stay the poorest. Starve for all I care, right? Federal Employees get automatic raises - but not the poorest.

[parocks]

Parocks Quote:In a free market, a McChicken would cost exactly the amount is costs to make.

And you were an econ major?

Well, I should have said "it" and not "is".

Here's a wiki for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-of-production_theory_of_value

Cost-of-production theory of value
In economics, the cost-of-production theory of value is the theory that the price of an object or condition is determined by the sum of the cost of the resources that went into making it. The cost can comprise any of the factors of production (including labor, capital, or land) and taxation.

The theory makes the most sense under assumptions of constant returns to scale and the existence of just one non-produced factor of production. These are the assumptions of the so-called non-substitution theorem. Under these assumptions, the long-run price of a commodity is equal to the sum of the cost of the inputs into that commodity, including interest charges.

**************

Why would people be arguing against raising the minimum wage if the cost of production (including minimum wage) didn't substantially effect the price.

What people typically aren't taking into consideration is that there are a lot of factors going into that McChicken beyond the contributions of the minimum wage workers. Gas prices can vary widely. Things have to shipped all over the place. That's a factor in the cost of a McChicken. Getting the bun and and the lettuce and the chicken to the McDonalds.

It might seem crazy to you, but the old-school economists, who were dealing with a free market (not what we have today, where a super bowl ad increases the cost of a McChicken), were working with commodities. The McChicken is a custom product. It's advertised as being special, not a commodity. Economists deal with the free market, commodities.

***********************

"Historically, the best-known proponent of such theories is probably Adam Smith"

So, you're going to argue with me and Adam Smith, huh, about free markets?

"Smith contrasted natural prices with market price. Smith theorized that market prices would tend toward natural prices, where outputs would stand at what he characterized as the "level of effectual demand". At So,this level, Smith's natural prices of commodities are the sum of the natural rates of wages, profits, and rent that must be paid for inputs into production. "

So, I was right, and you are wrong.

I'm pleased to see that I haven't forgotten the basics of the free market, which doesn't exist anymore.

[GunnyFreedom]

Obviously I oppose this, but I don't actually blame the soft-hearted soft-headed people who don't know any better who do support it. We have a pretty heavily distorted economy that hurts the poor the most. Most people do recognize that. Where they go wrong is in failing to identify the source of the problem as biggov rules and captured regulators. The condition we exist in today is pretty unjust, and most people are just trying to pay their bills and not be bothered, so they don't get why our system is broken today. They support this nonsense because they don't know any better. We, on the other hand, understand the source of the distortion and are working to repair the problem. That repair (including eliminating the minimum wage among many, many other reforms) would quickly come to help the working poor most of all. We, however, do not win any friends when we fail to acknowledge that the current economic system is terribly broken and harmful to the very poor that the soft-hearted soft-headed people are trying (ignorantly) to help.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I would assume most people on this board who have at least some interest in economics would subscribe to the subjective theory of value.

[2young2vote]

It won't necessarily increase unemployment directly, but it will prevent job opportunities from opening up in the future. For example, when the minimum wage went up last time here in Michigan, my family business didn't lay anyone off or fire them, we just didn't hire as many the next year and increased our prices due to the almost 40% increase in labor (rounding $5.00 to $7.00). A 40% increase in cost is massive, especially when that cost is our first or second biggest expense in doing business. Not to mention the fact that hiring a new employee is practically an investment with the hours of paperwork and huge hourly cost of having them work for us.

Saying it has no negative affect on business is foolish. Our customers don't like it when we raise prices, and we don't like it when we raise prices. We only have one employee working when we should probably have two in order to have better customer service, but due to the minimum wage it just isn't cost effective to have two people working.

10 years ago we had employees who were complaining that they didn't make enough money at $5.XX. At $7.40 right now we have employees complaining that they don't make enough money. At $10.00 we will have employees complaining that they don't have enough money. If they were to have brought it to $21 to keep up the pace with inflation, they wouldn't have a job here because we would be closed. Nobody wants to pay $15 for an ice cream cone (the product we sell).

[mad cow]

@Parocks: Do you and Adam Smith think anybody is going to sell anything for the cost of production without making a profit?
Check that,I know Adam Smith doesn't think so.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Adam Smith

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, that old person having to pay $1.10 for a McChicken is a real back-breaker.

You ever hear of COLA? Cost Of Living Adjustment? It's the automatic raise that elderly people get every year with their social security.

Retirees to get 1.5 percent COLA in 2014
Federal and military retirees and Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2014. The COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index for September, a key statistic announced Oct. 30 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://federaldaily.com/articles/2013/10/30/retirees-to-get-1.5-percent-cola-in-2014.aspx

A lot of old people are pretty rich already. And they get raises.

But poor people on minimum wage - none for you. Stay the poorest. Starve for all I care, right? Federal Employees get automatic raises - but not the poorest.

I would love to see what you consider "a lot," and the "poor people on minimum wage" used to get raises... by moving on from working minimum wage.

* * *


Parocks Quote:In a free market, a McChicken would cost exactly the amount is costs to make.

And you were an econ major?

That makes more sense than it at first appears to make. "Dollar Menu" items are largely loss leaders. Most people don't just get those items, but also go on to buy fries, sodas (which even when McD's had them at $1 were still making them money), etc..

[mad cow]

I would love to see what you consider "a lot," and the "poor people on minimum wage" used to get raises... by moving on from working minimum wage.

* * *



That makes more sense than it at first appears to make. "Dollar Menu" items are largely loss leaders. Most people don't just get those items, but also go on to buy fries, sodas (which even when McD's had them at $1 were still making them money), etc..

If you don't balance out your loss leaders with even more profit leaders,you will soon be out of business.

[MelissaWV]

If you don't balance out your loss leaders with even more profit leaders,you will soon be out of business.

Which is what fast food chains do. Franchise owners are often ticked over the cheapo items they're required to price artificially low, but the profit margin on drinks is insane, and since they now have "premium" items (made with pretty much the same ingredients they had on hand at McD's to begin with) that have a silly markup as well, I'm sure it more than balances out.

[gwax23]

Econ major my ass. I was going to make a joke about you studying keynesian economics but its clear from your posts you havent studied any economics.

Your argument was the minimum wage doesnt effect the economy and should not only be kept where is but rise with the cost of inflation.

In the past 4 rambling posts of yours, youve

1)contradicted your original argument by claiming minimum wage does have an effect on prices and working hours
2)Then in your second even stupider post you said supply and demand dont effect prices at mcdonalds but claimed their executives do?
3)Then you changed your position a third time when you claimed that Mcdonald workers actually do benefit from the minimum wage increase

So obviously your insane, on the influence of drugs, or a liar and you havent passed a basic econ test in your life.

I think a combination of the above is possible.

Ill give you a quick basic econ lesson before I go to bed tonight, so I can feel confident in myself that I was a good Samaritan today.

Lesson One: Price Controls

The Minimum wage is a form of a price control. Price controls are bad. The minimum wage is a type of price control known as a "Price Floor." This basically means that the government dictates how low a price can be charged for a product. In this case, labor is the product and the price for it is the hourly wage. The businesses are the "consumers of labor" and the potential employees are the "supplier." In order to be effective the price floor must be above equilibrium. Thats why earlier I said its good if the minimum wage is not adjusted for inflation so that over time it will fall below the equilibrium and effectively be a non issue.

Now What price floors do when set above equilibrium is they increase the supply of labor but lower the demand for labor, because as the price rises for a product the demand lowers. This creates what is known as a "surplus" in this case a surplus of labor is also known as Unemployment. The only way to correct a surplus is to lower the price to the market rate in order to raise the demand back to equilibrium.

So basically what happens is all workers whose productivity is below the minimum wage are fired. If companies dont fire people they push the added cost of labor onto the consumer leading to rising prices. They also can attempt to automate their workforce to save costs, they can cut hours of their employees, they can cut their budget in other areas subsequently reducing the quality of their good or service.

They can do a myriad of things, the point is the things they are doing they wouldnt of done in the absence of this price floor. The government forced them to act in an inefficient manner. Some companies as I mentioned earlier run on tight margins and cant afford to raise prices or cut their workforce in half. They could theoretically go under. I also mentioned that big businesses such as McDonalds tend to favor minimum wage since it hurts their smaller competitors more than them since they can afford the added cost of labor and regulatory compliance that smaller firms simply cant. You either ignored this point or you where to thick to grasp it.

Further the minimum wage hurts poor, minority, and the young the hardest as they lack the on the job experience and education necessary to warrant a wage above the minimum wage. Hence they suffer more unemployment and this law hurts them disproportionate. The higher the minimum wage the more people it will effect as it begins to cover a greater range of employees based on their productivity.

If the minimum wage actually worked why not raise it to 50? 100? 200? Why stop at 10? or 9? Well at a certain point idiots like you and Paul Krugman will have to say "Oh well that will cause unemployment" the second you concede that point all your other arguments are nill so youll center the debate (as you have) on rambling about the McChicken and Monsato.

If you bothered to read this (Which I doubt) then your welcome. I just educated you more in economics then any of your (supposed) econ professors ever did.

Good night.

[MelissaWV]

Oh I would also love to see the OP poll broken up honestly by region, not just by party. People perceive $7-8/hour to be extremely poor in some areas. In others, it's just not.

[parocks]

Obviously I oppose this, but I don't actually blame the soft-hearted soft-headed people who don't know any better who do support it. We have a pretty heavily distorted economy that hurts the poor the most. Most people do recognize that. Where they go wrong is in failing to identify the source of the problem as biggov rules and captured regulators. The condition we exist in today is pretty unjust, and most people are just trying to pay their bills and not be bothered, so they don't get why our system is broken today. They support this nonsense because they don't know any better. We, on the other hand, understand the source of the distortion and are working to repair the problem. That repair (including eliminating the minimum wage among many, many other reforms) would quickly come to help the working poor most of all. We, however, do not win any friends when we fail to acknowledge that the current economic system is terribly broken and harmful to the very poor that the soft-hearted soft-headed people are trying (ignorantly) to help.

Biggov rules and captured regulators are awful. The worst. They're the cause of our particular, specific mess. Not really economic, but the fact that everything is awful and getting worse. And don't forget we spend way too much money on the military. That's was Ron Paul's #1 solution - bring em home. And the Fed and the bankers. Don't forget them.

One could make the argument that there is some new sort of business that would crop up if they were paying $2 an hour instead of $9. But I don't think that would happen. What would happen would be all existing oligopoly stores - McDonalds and the fast foods, Walmart and them, Supermarkets, would all just start lowering their wages as low as they can go. Is that really necessary?

These businesses already exist, they can adjust to higher wages. We still gotta eat. You can go to a supermarket, or to a fast food place. Any number of places. Those are all places where there are minimum wage workers. I'd like to see a breakdown of what types of businesses are paying minimum wage. I would expect that a lot of them have something to do with food. And we all have to eat food. Every competitor is faced with the same situation of rising minimum wage costs. Fast food doesn't gain an advantage over supermarkets because one has a wage hike and the other doesn't. They're the ones with the minimum wagers. So, basically, prices go up a tiny bit across the board - over time. This is not a terrible outcome.

Consider the economic impacts on the demand side. Many, many people, who don't have a lot of money, will each have an extra $50 a week to spend. And they're
going to spend it. I don't know how many nights of partying $50 gets, but it's some, and local businesses could benefit from that $. People without a lot of money tend to spend it. Most of that money they're getting will go right out the door. Often, to buy food. Maybe the McDonalds worker will spend more at Walmart and the Walmart worker will eat more often at McDonalds. Higher labor costs are something a business would want to discourage, but they're offset somewhat by increased demand.

[parocks]

Econ major my ass. I was going to make a joke about you studying keynesian economics but its clear from your posts you havent studied any economics.

Your argument was the minimum wage doesnt effect the economy and should not only be kept where is but rise with the cost of inflation.

In the past 4 rambling posts of yours, youve

1)contradicted your original argument by claiming minimum wage does have an effect on prices and working hours
2)Then in your second even stupider post you said supply and demand dont effect prices at mcdonalds but claimed their executives do?
3)Then you changed your position a third time when you claimed that Mcdonald workers actually do benefit from the minimum wage increase

So obviously your insane, on the influence of drugs, or a liar and you havent passed a basic econ test in your life.

I think a combination of the above is possible.

Ill give you a quick basic econ lesson before I go to bed tonight, so I can feel confident in myself that I was a good Samaritan today.

Lesson One: Price Controls

The Minimum wage is a form of a price control. Price controls are bad. The minimum wage is a type of price control known as a "Price Floor." This basically means that the government dictates how low a price can be charged for a product. In this case, labor is the product and the price for it is the hourly wage. The businesses are the "consumers of labor" and the potential employees are the "supplier." In order to be effective the price floor must be above equilibrium. Thats why earlier I said its good if the minimum wage is not adjusted for inflation so that over time it will fall below the equilibrium and effectively be a non issue.

Now What price floors do when set above equilibrium is they increase the supply of labor but lower the demand for labor, because as the price rises for a product the demand lowers. This creates what is known as a "surplus" in this case a surplus of labor is also known as Unemployment. The only way to correct a surplus is to lower the price to the market rate in order to raise the demand back to equilibrium.

So basically what happens is all workers whose productivity is below the minimum wage are fired. If companies dont fire people they push the added cost of labor onto the consumer leading to rising prices. They also can attempt to automate their workforce to save costs, they can cut hours of their employees, they can cut their budget in other areas subsequently reducing the quality of their good or service.

They can do a myriad of things, the point is the things they are doing they wouldnt of done in the absence of this price floor. The government forced them to act in an inefficient manner. Some companies as I mentioned earlier run on tight margins and cant afford to raise prices or cut their workforce in half. They could theoretically go under. I also mentioned that big businesses such as McDonalds tend to favor minimum wage since it hurts their smaller competitors more than them since they can afford the added cost of labor and regulatory compliance that smaller firms simply cant. You either ignored this point or you where to thick to grasp it.

Further the minimum wage hurts poor, minority, and the young the hardest as they lack the on the job experience and education necessary to warrant a wage above the minimum wage. Hence they suffer more unemployment and this law hurts them disproportionate. The higher the minimum wage the more people it will effect as it begins to cover a greater range of employees based on their productivity.

If the minimum wage actually worked why not raise it to 50? 100? 200? Why stop at 10? or 9? Well at a certain point idiots like you and Paul Krugman will have to say "Oh well that will cause unemployment" the second you concede that point all your other arguments are nill so youll center the debate (as you have) on rambling about the McChicken and Monsato.

If you bothered to read this (Which I doubt) then your welcome. I just educated you more in economics then any of your (supposed) econ professors ever did.

Good night.

I know those arguments. At $9 an hour, more people will want to work than will want to hire them. At $2 an hour, more people will want to buy labor than sell labor.

I know this. But the downsides are outweighed by the upsides. I understand that the oligarchs have the advantage over the indies. That's unfortunate. I'm assuming that the oligarchs are paying more right now, and a min wage hike wouldn't change their wages.

I get that it would cause unemployment. Of course, if you removed the minimum wage, everybody at the grocery store would be working for $5 an hour, and there would be the same amount of employees, but there's be different people. The 20 best they could get for $9 and the 20 best they could get for $5. Your shopping experience will be worse, because the employees would be worse. The prices would go down, maybe. Their employees wouldn't be able to afford them, otherwise.

I get that it would cause inflation. Wages are a part of prices. Wages go up prices go up.

Inflation, Unemployment - tend to go up with min wage hike
but
Increased Demand - on the other side. Basically, more money is getting into more pockets
and that money is being spent at the very stores that had the min wage hike. They're buying more
at the Supermarket, they might go out once a week or once more a week. A few more bucks
in the bar owners pocket. For most of the people getting minimum wage, a hike is a good thing.
More money in their pockets. Helps the economy.
Decreased Unemployment - the increased demand might cause an increase in hours or even hiring.
Add another bartender if the bars get busier. Another cashier.

I also think it an intrinsically good thing that most of these people got raises. Fed Gov employees get automatic raises. I'd like to stop that. Social Security has a cola. They get raises. these are the poorest of them, and they're the ones who don't get the raises?

What you don't seem to understand, and it really isn't discussed much is that the minimum wage is what keeps poor people from being much poorer and much more pissed off. They're going to want some sort of law to prevent them from starving. And there were a bunch of laws passed that did that. The core one was the minimum wage. Yes, it clearly does distort the market. But overall, I think the pros outweigh the cons.

You mention that "why not make it $50?". Yes, there would be some unemployment (especially in a theoretical sense) and inflation.
On the other hand (we understand the arguments), there will be a bunch of people walking around with $50 more in their pocket, and that's a good thing. It's good that those poor people have more money, and that money gets spent in local businesses.
So, in terms of unemployment, you have a theoretical argument that IF the minimum wage was $6, there would be more people employed. How exactly would that work? What would be some specifics about how that would work? I would think that if a Supermarket could cut everyones pay by $2 an hour, they'd pick up an extra person. Is that why we get rid of the minimum wage? So that Supermarkets can cut everyones pay and add another worker? And then, when all the minimum wage workers spend less money because they have less money, less money comes into the supermarket, and they won't need that extra worker.

You've described the theoretical basis for unemployment here. There are some people who would hire at $6 but not at $9.

It might be helpful if you could site examples of where a typical minimum wage hike, which has been happening since the beginning of the law, would cause a business to have to fire half it's workers. Could you find examples from the past where a minimum wage hike was blamed for bad outcomes. Links. In a supermarket, prices just go up. This minimum wage hike is just like every other minimum wage hike, the supermarkets will just keep doing what they've always done.

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

I'm a college student looking for a job and I'd be thrilled to work for $5 an hour. But y'know, the gubbermint wants to make sure I'm safe from those evil exploiting businesses who want to cut my wages and benefits and have me work 18 hour days in a dark sweatshop knitting dresses to sell to Macy's.

[SilentBull]

Those who say that the minimum wage doesn't hurt the economy always completely ignore the jobs that would have otherwise been created if the minimum wage weren't there. This is pretty simple to understand if you put yourself in the shoes of a business owner.

Or just think about what would happen to cars in this scenario. Say a law is passed that prevents any car from being sold for less than 5k. What would happen to the cars that are worth 2k? No one would buy them. Those who are poor will not buy a car, and those who can afford a 5k car will buy cars that are really worth at least 5k. 2k cars would be left on the lot. This is unemployment.

[Seraphim]

Title should read;

76% of Americans are economically illiterate and would inadvertently raise unemployement.

[Keith and stuff]

Yeah, that old person having to pay $1.10 for a McChicken is a real back-breaker.

You ever hear of COLA? Cost Of Living Adjustment? It's the automatic raise that elderly people get every year with their social security.
The doesn't come close to keeping up with the cost of rising prices. But of course, many old people aren't on SS so it doesn't even relate to them.



But poor people on minimum wage - none for you. Stay the poorest. Starve for all I care, right? Federal Employees get automatic raises - but not the poorest.
Increasing the min. wage is designed to increase the number of poor people. It also hurts the working poor the most of any working group as the price of goods increases by a larger percentage of their income than for any other working group. So if someone wanted to hurt the working poor, the best government acts to do it are to do things like increase the min. wage.

[Keith and stuff]

Title should read;

76% of Americans are economically illiterate and would inadvertently raise unemployement.

Or 76% of Americans are economically illiterate and would inadvertently punish people for being working poor, elderly, having savings, trying to start a business, trying to run a business, being minority, having little formal education and so on.

[parocks]

Title should read;

76% of Americans are economically illiterate and would inadvertently raise unemployement.

People understand that. They just don't care.

They think it's better if 90% are asked to work at $9 than if 95% are asked to work at $7 or 99% are asked to work at $5.

They don't have problems understanding this. You have problems understanding, simply, that a vast majority of Americans just don't agree with you.

[parocks]

Those who say that the minimum wage doesn't hurt the economy always completely ignore the jobs that would have otherwise been created if the minimum wage weren't there. This is pretty simple to understand if you put yourself in the shoes of a business owner.

Or just think about what would happen to cars in this scenario. Say a law is passed that prevents any car from being sold for less than 5k. What would happen to the cars that are worth 2k? No one would buy them. Those who are poor will not buy a car, and those who can afford a 5k car will buy cars that are really worth at least 5k. 2k cars would be left on the lot. This is unemployment.

I like how you're trying an analogy. Doesn't have to do with the labor market. We all understand this though. Even the vast majority of Americans who want to raise the minimum wage.

They just don't think it's a big problem that the workers who aren't good enough to work for minimum wage don't have jobs.

They understand. They don't agree with you. You're in the minority here.

[Zippyjuan]

Parocks Quote:In a free market, a McChicken would cost exactly the amount is costs to make.

And you were an econ major?

If I have to sell an item for the exact amount of what it costs me to produce, where is my income? How do I make a living and be able to afford to produce that item? The price must include a profit for me or I am not going to produce it. You also ignore demand. If I have only one chicken McNugget and two people want it, they will bid against each other and that will allow me to get a higher price for it.

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah, that old person having to pay $1.10 for a McChicken is a real back-breaker.

You ever hear of COLA? Cost Of Living Adjustment? It's the automatic raise that elderly people get every year with their social security.

Retirees to get 1.5 percent COLA in 2014
Federal and military retirees and Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2014. The COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index for September, a key statistic announced Oct. 30 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://federaldaily.com/articles/2013/10/30/retirees-to-get-1.5-percent-cola-in-2014.aspx

A lot of old people are pretty rich already. And they get raises.

But poor people on minimum wage - none for you. Stay the poorest. Starve for all I care, right? Federal Employees get automatic raises - but not the poorest.

If everybody gets a cost of living adjustment, it will lead to more price inflation. Employers are forced to pay higher wages to all of their employees. They need their profit margin to stay in business so they raise their prices to pay for the wage increases (or they could combine that with reducing their labor but there are limits to that- it takes a minimum amount of labor to produce their product). Those price increases mean that the cost of living goes up. Then the workers get another wage increase. The employers have to raise prices. Repeat.

[parocks]

Or 76% of Americans are economically illiterate and would inadvertently punish people for being working poor, elderly, having savings, trying to start a business, trying to run a business, being minority, having little formal education and so on.

Or 24% are just completely clueless that a small raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of minimum wage workers.

And that is a good thing that helps the economy.

All those people with extra money will spend it. Increase in economic activity. Increase in demand.

There are some negatives to raising the minimum wage.

There are some positives to raising the minimum wage.

To most, the positives outweigh the negatives.

It's as simple as that.

[SilentBull]

I like how you're trying an analogy. Doesn't have to do with the labor market. We all understand this though. Even the vast majority of Americans who want to raise the minimum wage.

They just don't think it's a big problem that the workers who aren't good enough to work for minimum wage don't have jobs.

They understand. They don't agree with you. You're in the minority here.

Oh, I know they don't agree with me. My point is that anyone that claims that the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs is wrong. And labor is a product just like any other. A car and labor really are the same. You are selling something that you want others to buy. The government tells you that you can't sell your service for less than a certain amount. It doesn't matter what the product or service is. Economics works the same way for both.

[Keith and stuff]

http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

Click on page 130

[SilentBull]

There are some negatives to raising the minimum wage.

There are some positives to raising the minimum wage.

To most, the positives outweigh the negatives.


Yeah, there is a positive for those who are lucky enough to be hired. But this positive is at the expense of those who now make $0 an hour because they are not hired at all.

[Keith and stuff]

Yeah, there is a positive for those who are lucky enough to be hired. But this positive is at the expense of those who now make $0 an hour because they are not hired at all.

Overall, it hurts the people that are hired, also. The statist politicians that push for this and get votes from clueless people benefit the most, but it still hurts them.

[mad cow]

I like how you're trying an analogy. Doesn't have to do with the labor market. We all understand this though. Even the vast majority of Americans who want to raise the minimum wage.

They just don't think it's a big problem that the workers who aren't good enough to work for minimum wage don't have jobs.

They understand. They don't agree with you. You're in the minority here.

You are saying that a minimum wage is good for the economy and I say it is bad for the economy.

Let's assume that we counted up from any number by dimes.After some period of time we will either get up to $1,000,000 dollars/hour or you will have to explain to me why a min.wage of $8.90/hour is bad for the economy,$9.00/hour is good for the economy and $9.10/hour is bad again.

The proper price for an hour of work in a free market,like everything else in a free market,is whatever the buyer and seller of that hour of work voluntarily come to terms on.

[parocks]

The doesn't come close to keeping up with the cost of rising prices. But of course, many old people aren't on SS so it doesn't even relate to them.



Increasing the min. wage is designed to increase the number of poor people. It also hurts the working poor the most of any working group as the price of goods increases by a larger percentage of their income than for any other working group. So if someone wanted to hurt the working poor, the best government acts to do it are to do things like increase the min. wage.


Show your examples. The working poor, getting minimum wage, get a raise. More money in their pockets. Yes, it's inflationary, and in theory, American workers cannot compete with slaves or prisoners. If you wanted to, you could argue that the economy would work better if there was slavery and more prison labor. I'm sure that you can find a curve that supports your position. And I guess you could argue that the world is working better with millions of slaves humming along, working, at the least possible cost. But most Americans don't want to be slaves, and don't want there to be any slaves, anywhere.

I understand that the buyers of labor would prefer not to pay anything at all. But that would not help those people, and don't pretend it would.

[Zippyjuan]

Or 24% are just completely clueless that a small raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of minimum wage workers.

And that is a good thing that helps the economy.

All those people with extra money will spend it. Increase in economic activity. Increase in demand.

There are some negatives to raising the minimum wage.

There are some positives to raising the minimum wage.

To most, the positives outweigh the negatives.

It's as simple as that.

The benefits of increasing the minimum wage are mostly illusiory. Yes, a small group of people get a short term benefit. About three percent of all workers get paid the federal minimum wage. Giving them a raise means that they can spend more money and create more jobs but we are not talking about much money so job gains are minimal. About three percent of the workers in the US get the minimum wage. And prices get increased to pay for the higher wages the employers now have to pay which means in buying power, they gain less than the increase. And those who didn't get the raise are paying more too so they have real income to spend. That offsets the gains from spending increases from the minimum wage earners. Over time, the gains in purchasing power by the minimum wage people also gets eaten up and you are back where you were. And this does not count the possiblity of employers using fewer minimum wage workers since each one now costs more. The people who lost those jobs along with the people paying higher prices subsidised the short term gains of the minimum workers.

In 2012, 1.6 million workers received the Federal minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm Figuring many were part time (lets say an average of 32 hours a week and 50 weeks a year- 1600 hours), if we increased the minimum wage by one dollar an hour, that would add $1,600 a year to their income. That means we would add $2.56 billion to the US economy assuming the money is not offset. $2.56 billion is a drop in the $14,000 billion economy. Compare that to the stimulus tried in the wake of the economic collapse. The original authorization for TARP was $700 billion (about half of that was actually used but would still be 140 times bigger). As an economic stimulus, raising the minimum wage really doesn't do anything.

(yes, I have an Econ degree).

[jdcole]

Gallup poll: 76% of Americans have no clue what they speak of.

People saying they are for raising the minimum wage are like people saying they are all about celebrating mediocrity.

[compromise]

I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of Americans would vote to raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour.

[mad cow]

I understand that the buyers of labor would prefer not to pay anything at all. But that would not help those people, and don't pretend it would.

And I understand that sellers of labor would prefer to get $10,000/hour.Let the bargaining start.In a free market,they will voluntarily come to terms somewhere between those extremes or they will agree not to do business with each other.

[parocks]

"The benefits of increasing the minimum wage are mostly illusiory. Yes, a small group of people get a short term benefit."

How is it short term? Minimum wage goes up, stays up, and for everyone making minimum wage, they get a raise.

"About three percent of all workers get paid the federal minimum wage. Giving them a raise means that they can spend more money and create more jobs but we are not talking about much money so job gains are minimal."

Giving them a raise means they aren't starving. Yes, they're spending more money. That might or might not create jobs. I'd argue that it does, to some extent. But that's not why it's being done. It's to improve the lives of the people making minimum wage. That 3%. Arguing against the minimum wage keeping pace with inflation (social security does, Fed Gov workers get automatic raises) sounds like you want poor people to suffer. The point of the minimum wage is relieve that suffering, and you're arguing against that. And you're arguing against that in a country where government workers get automatic raises.

" About three percent of the workers in the US get the minimum wage. And prices get increased to pay for the higher wages the employers now have to pay which means in buying power, they gain less than the increase. "

Agreed.


"And those who didn't get the raise are paying more too so they have real income to spend. That offsets the gains from spending increases from the minimum wage earners."

Right.


"Over time, the gains in purchasing power by the minimum wage people also gets eaten up and you are back where you were."

Explain this. Not arguing against what you're saying here, but you haven't explained the mechanism that creates "back where you were"
in enough detail.

If 3% of the workers get a 25% raise, I don't see how prices go up 25%. If 100% of the workers got a 25% raise, then prices would rise 25%. But only 3% are getting the raise. 3% of 25% is a little more than 1%. Everybody making between 7.25 and 9 will also get a smaller raise. You might have access to those numbers, I don't. Let's stick with the numbers we have, recognizing that the real numbers are a little higher. If you're arguing that raising the minimum wage by itself will create enough inflation to destroy the gains from 7.25 to 9, you're wrong. Yes, there would be inflation, but more like 1 or 2%, and less like 25%. I can't really tell if that's the argument you were trying to make.

Yes, raising the minimum wage is inflationary. But you aren't "back where you were". The people making minimum wage are ahead
of where they were. Right now they're at 7.25 an hour. They'd be at 9. That's ahead.

"And this does not count the possiblity of employers using fewer minimum wage workers since each one now costs more. The people who lost those jobs along with the people paying higher prices subsidised the short term gains of the minimum workers."

Right, to some degree. It's a trade off that 3/4 of the voters understand and approve of. Everybody pays a tiny bit more so that good hard working Americans who are poor can get more. That's why your side of the argument has so few supporters.

Also consider this - yes, in a vacuum, one would assume that people would get fired if the minimum wage goes up. However, 3% of the population just got a 25% raise, and they're going to spend that money in the same type of places where they work. Places that pay their employees minimum wage. Truth be told, in the real world, all of these businesses have been dealing with minimum wages, and minimum wage hikes, forever. They know how to deal with them. Prices of food, grown presumably by farmers who don't get paid minimum wage, fluctuate. And supermarkets deal with that every day. Transportation costs fluctuate with the cost of gas. Prices are always changing. But if 3% of the population gets a raise, they're gonna spend it.

"In 2012, 1.6 million workers received the Federal minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm Figuring many were part time (lets say an average of 32 hours a week and 50 weeks a year- 1600 hours), if we increased the minimum wage by one dollar an hour, that would add $1,600 a year to their income."

Sweet. But it might be more useful to go with 1.75 an hour, because that's what's going to happen. BTW, you said 3%. 1.6 million seems like around 1%.

"That means we would add $2.56 billion to the US economy assuming the money is not offset. $2.56 billion is a drop in the $14,000 billion economy."

Right. Now you're getting it. Why are you bitching so hard about giving the poorest hard working Americans a tiny raise, from poor to still poor, but just a tiny bit less poor?

"Compare that to the stimulus tried in the wake of the economic collapse. The original authorization for TARP was $700 billion (about half of that was actually used but would still be 140 times bigger). As an economic stimulus, raising the minimum wage really doesn't do anything."

Again, it does have some economic stimulus effects. But the economic stimulus effects aren't why it's being done. It isn't being done to help "the economy". It's being done to help those people. The lives of the minimum wage workers are being improved. This is a good thing. A small amount of money would make a significant difference to the lives of those people on minimum wage - or sub $9 an hour workers, more accurately. For minimum workers - $70 a week. Could be quite useful to them.

(yes, I have an Econ degree).[/QUOTE]

[Zippyjuan]

Prices rise. If the gains of increasing the minimum wage are to be maintained for those people, it must be continuously increased- otherwise price inflation wipes out the gains over time (how quickly depends on how much wages were increased and how fast prices are going up).

Why a select group? Why not increase everybody's wages and make everyone better off? Because prices would rise even faster so nobody would really be better off. The increase will be paid for someplace.

What about the workers? Their employer has a budget. If he has to raise wages 20% and is in a competitive market, he has a harder time passing along price increases. So instead of raising prices he may cut hours by 20%. The worker gets more per hour but fewer hours. Is he on net better off? Or maybe the employer reduces the number of workers. Some gained wages- some had their wages go to zero. If you are in the zero group, you are not better off.

[parocks]

And I understand that sellers of labor would prefer to get $10,000/hour.Let the bargaining start.In a free market,they will voluntarily come to terms somewhere between those extremes or they will agree not to do business with each other.

We don't live in a free market.

Tell me when we do. Then I'll be in favor.

Supermarkets are oligopolies. They can set the wage. They have superior bargaining power. In a free market, there aren't oligopolies / monopolies.
If every supermarket was independently owned, then it would be closer to a free market. But everywhere, except maybe in major cities, and very small towns, people get their groceries from supermarket chains. In many places there's one dominant chain. In Central PA, it's Giant. In Maine, it's Hannaford. If Giant wanted to cut their wages to $5 an hour, there really aren't other places for those people to work. So, they either take 5 or be unemployed. The best person quits. They hire 2 people to do that person's job. Their labor costs are still lower. This is not an improvement.

Goverment takes half our money. They aren't aren't spending it at Giant, or at Wal-Mart, or at any store that gets you the food you need. They're buying drones with it. The drone part of the economy is doing well. When the Government is buying stuff, that's not free market.


In a free market, people would keep their money. Not give half to the government. With that money, they'd go to places that minimum wage workers work. And give them money. Someone would start a business because there was so much more money in the pockets of everyone. That creates more minimum wage jobs. So those extras who don't make the cut would get a change to work. But the Government takes our money. We can't afford to buy the things we want because the government takes our money and spends it on drones, a ton of people spying on Americans, and way way too many military bases around the world. This is Ron Paul Forums - not Libertarian Forums. Ron Paul didn't put "abolish the minimum wage" at the center of his campaign. He did put "slash the military budget in half and that'll take care of most of our problems" at the center.

"Gee, I'd like to buy steak, but I'll buy hamburger instead, because the government is taking my steak money to spy on me." You don't have the NSA in a free market.
The world we currently live in, is one that has the NSA it. It is not a free market. The economic rules that describe what happens to a free market, do not describe what we're experiencing right now. Welfare state, Socialism, etc. The Government is now forcing you to buy health insurance. People don't have the money to spend on that. Not a free market. When you do have a free market, things get into a normal, workable balance. When you have the Government taking half the money, that balance is disrupted. By people, money is spent locally. It cycles back. If our money goes to the Government, it gets spent elsewhere. If half your demand goes to the government, you have a lot of empty stores. If the people had twice as much money, they'd buy twice as much stuff. And that means longer lines at the Giant or they hire another cashier. But the Government takes our money so we can't buy the stuff we want. Many potential cashiers are sitting at home, waiting for the stores to be more full. But the government takes our money. We can't buy enough stuff to keep the worst potential cashier busy. They need me to buy steak so that the worst cashier can have a job, but I can't buy steak because the government took my money, so the cashier has no job. Because of the Government's actions - moving the money away from where it was earned - money that would be spent where it was earned, creating employment. Taking away the money creates a surplus of labor. Shorter lines, no steak. This causes the price of labor to drop. Unemployed, less qualified, work for less. The Government knows that their spending is causing artifically low wages (if the goverment didn't fk with the economy by taking the money, causing the cashier to not be hired, or, in a non-minimum wage scenario, causing the cashier to be paid less) and they didn't like the result, and passed the minimum wage.

[mad cow]

Sheesh,what does that huge post have to do with the subject?Minimum wage laws hinder choice.If somebody does or doesn't want to work for $5,$10,$20 or $$50,000 an hour,that is their choice,not yours.

This is a private contract between two actors,it shouldn't involve you or the government.If you don't like their choices,too bad,deal with it,it doesn't involve you and it is none of your business.
If you think they are worth more than $5.00/hour,hire them.

[Bastiat's The Law]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI

[mad cow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI

Great vid,+rep.

[parocks]

"Prices rise. If the gains of increasing the minimum wage are to be maintained for those people, it must be continuously increased- otherwise price inflation wipes out the gains over time (how quickly depends on how much wages were increased and how fast prices are going up). "

That is exactly what happens. That's how it works. It's time for another minimum wage hike.
first 43 years (1938-1981) - over 1000% increase (.25 - 3.35)
second 32 years (1981-2013) - under 120% increase (3.35 - 7.25)

"Why a select group? Why not increase everybody's wages and make everyone better off? Because prices would rise even faster so nobody would really be better off."

Right. It's in place for the poorest.



" The increase will be paid for someplace."

?

"What about the workers? Their employer has a budget. If he has to raise wages 20% and is in a competitive market, he has a harder time passing along price increases."

You're assuming he's in a competitive market. Think - big grocery store chain. Most of these businesses are oligopolies.

Also, these businesses competing with other similar businesses. The other business also have minimum wage workers. All of the wages will go up at the same time in the same basic way for everybody. Nobody is getting a competitive advantage over anyone here.


"So instead of raising prices he may cut hours by 20%. The worker gets more per hour but fewer hours. Is he on net better off?"

Assuming that they cut hours, even though there were more customers, because a segment of people that didn't have much money to spend on food
now has more money to spend on foodd

He's better off. He has more free time. And don't forget, if there are oligopolies involved, they don't work the same way. They cut hours, cut prices, or stop buying ads on tv. There are a lot of ways for them to deal with min wage hikes, as well as gas prices going up. It seems like they've been able to do it pretty well since 1938.

"Or maybe the employer reduces the number of workers. Some gained wages- some had their wages go to zero. If you are in the zero group, you are not better off."

Yeah, correct. You'll have to find another job. Or be unable to. That's definitely a downside for those people who get fired because the minimum wage goes up. I think there are far fewer of them than you think. One, because the supermarkets are competing with each other, and people gotta eat, you they'd likely just raise prices like they always have. The supermarkets need who they need. The difference between 7.25 and 9 is irrelevant to them, because they know the other supermarkets also have to raise their labor costs. Prices go up. A tiny bit. Prices are always going up. Oh, look, that costs a quarter more. There isn't any shock, it's built in, they just continuously raise prices. In some cases you won't really have any idea what the price is going to be on a 12 pack of Pepsi. You know that it's worth less than they have it on sale for. And sometimes it's a dollar more. They're charging whatever they feel like, whenever they want. It could be Giant, it could be Pepsi.
It's the way it is, and it isn't particularly worrisome. I just wouldn't worry about too much unemployment being created from this in real life.

Certainly, there are scenarios where this could happen, but typically people's examples are theoretical, and not real.

[mad cow]

Bottom line Parocks,you are in favor of putting a gun to somebody's head and saying "pay this person what I want you to pay him,even if he is not worth what I insist that you pay him or I will blow your brains out".

Don Corleone would be proud.

[parocks]

Bottom line Parocks,you are in favor of putting a gun to somebody's head and saying "pay this person what I want you to pay him,even if he is not worth what I insist that you pay him or I will blow your brains out".

Don Corleone would be proud.

Are you a crazy person?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything with the minimum wage.

You're thinking of Obamacare.

[mad cow]

Are you a crazy person?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything with the minimum wage.

You're thinking of Obamacare.

If you are now saying that the wage paid to any employee is completely between him and his employer and can be as low as $0.01/hour,I must apologize,I have totally misunderstood you during this entire thread.

[nobody's_hero]

If they raise the minimum wage and retail workers start getting paid $9/hr, I would seriously consider quitting my job I went to college for, to work in retail. Being a nurse is radically more stressful than stocking a warehouse, and with a base rate of $20 an hour as a nurse, I'd have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of quitting to go work in retail. It might be worth it in terms of the stress I deal with. I certainly would not go through 4 years of college only to make a few bucks more than unskilled workers.

Of course, what will most likely happen is that my wages will go up when minimum-wage earners get more money in their pockets. This is what is known as, "moving the goalposts." The poorest people will get a boost in their pay, which will be negated by proportional increases to all other income-brackets.

[Keith and stuff]

Supermarkets are oligopolies.
It depends where you live. For example, Keene NH has 6 stores that least have several full length grocery isles (Walmart, Target, Dollar Tree, Price Chopper, and Hannaford's) another 6 local food markets that don't sell gas. Then there are 4 gas stations with markets in them. And less than 1 mile south there is another grocery store (Market Basket) and another gas station with a market. Plus there are farms and even a large co-op that's locally owned. Not to mention the farmer's market. There are 3 drug stores that have isle after isle of food, including frozen and things like eggs and milk. In fact, if you do coupon stacking, drug stores tend to have the best deals on name brand items, as you can often get stuff for free. Then there's the all local store and the old country store. So people in Keene have at least 25 food stores to buy groceries within bike riding distance. There was another local chain grocery store, Shaw's, but it had to close because it wasn't competitive with the near-by much smaller chain, Market Basket, not to mention the Walmart that shared a building with it. And several years back, Kmart closed because it was poorly run. So there is a good flow on companies competing in the Keene market. There are also a dozen bakeries that sell things like cupcakes, cakes, donuts, muffins... in bulk, which compete with grocery stores for those things. Then in you drive 25 minutes in 3 different directions, there are other grocery stores, food markets, gas stations with markets, dollar stores and so on.

New stores are continuously being built (ALDI, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree, Ocean State Job Lot, Walmart, Market Basket, Trader Joe's Whole Foods, Fresh Market, Ali Baba, local co-ops) and various poorly run stores continue to fail in NH (the Costco in Portsmouth, all of the Stop N Shops in NH, some of the Shaw's). The market certainly isn't a oligopoly in NH, but maybe in your community in ME, it is. That might not just be able lack of a free market in ME, considering how few people live in the area and it's in ME, which is on the edge of the US. My guess is, if ME wasn't so anti-business and anti-consumer, you might have a little more competition there, but it's hard to compete when the market is so small and there is NH right next door.

[Keith and stuff]

Of course, what will most likely happen is that my wages will go up when minimum-wage earners get more money in their pockets. This is what is known as, "moving the goalposts." The poorest people will get a boost in their pay, which will be negated by proportional increases to all other income-brackets.
If you are in a union, that might be likely. Some unions negotiate contracts so that the folks in them get a minimum of a certain multiple of min. wage. So if the minimum wage goes up, some or many nicely paid union workers get pay increases.

[Keith and stuff]

Are you a crazy person?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything with the minimum wage.

You're thinking of Obamacare.
Isn't it called the minimum wage because it's the minimum wage a company has to pay a almost no skilled worker or that company holds/the leaders go to jail/the company can never hire workers or whatever?

[parocks]

Isn't it called the minimum wage because it's the minimum wage a company has to pay a almost no skilled worker or that company holds/the leaders go to jail/the company can never hire workers or whatever?

Yet, no one is FORCED to DO anything.

Similar arguments can be made. But there is no FORCING to DO, like there is with Obamacare.

[parocks]

It depends where you live. For example, Keene NH has 6 stores that least have several full length grocery isles (Walmart, Target, Dollar Tree, Price Chopper, and Hannaford's) another 6 local food markets that don't sell gas. Then there are 4 gas stations with markets in them. And less than 1 mile south there is another grocery store (Market Basket) and another gas station with a market. Plus there are farms and even a large co-op that's locally owned. Not to mention the farmer's market. There are 3 drug stores that have isle after isle of food, including frozen and things like eggs and milk. In fact, if you do coupon stacking, drug stores tend to have the best deals on name brand items, as you can often get stuff for free. Then there's the all local store and the old country store. So people in Keene have at least 25 food stores to buy groceries within bike riding distance. There was another local chain grocery store, Shaw's, but it had to close because it wasn't competitive with the near-by much smaller chain, Market Basket, not to mention the Walmart that shared a building with it. And several years back, Kmart closed because it was poorly run. So there is a good flow on companies competing in the Keene market. There are also a dozen bakeries that sell things like cupcakes, cakes, donuts, muffins... in bulk, which compete with grocery stores for those things. Then in you drive 25 minutes in 3 different directions, there are other grocery stores, food markets, gas stations with markets, dollar stores and so on.

New stores are continuously being built (ALDI, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree, Ocean State Job Lot, Walmart, Market Basket, Trader Joe's Whole Foods, Fresh Market, Ali Baba, local co-ops) and various poorly run stores continue to fail in NH (the Costco in Portsmouth, all of the Stop N Shops in NH, some of the Shaw's). The market certainly isn't a oligopoly in NH, but maybe in your community in ME, it is. That might not just be able lack of a free market in ME, considering how few people live in the area and it's in ME, which is on the edge of the US. My guess is, if ME wasn't so anti-business and anti-consumer, you might have a little more competition there, but it's hard to compete when the market is so small and there is NH right next door.

Ok. Good analysis of the supermarket situation in Keene, NH. It does not appear that Keene, NH is in anywhere near the same situation as Maine is. I would note that I don't consider gas stations with food or dollar stores to be supermarkets. There is the one dominant supermarket chain. But that doesn't mean there aren't convenience stores. Or local food markets, with a wider selection of food than convenience stores. Or that we don't have Walmarts, or that we don't have independents, or that we don't have Shaws. It's just that Hannaford is the biggest, with enough might to effect the labor market.

[parocks]

If they raise the minimum wage and retail workers start getting paid $9/hr, I would seriously consider quitting my job I went to college for, to work in retail. Being a nurse is radically more stressful than stocking a warehouse, and with a base rate of $20 an hour as a nurse, I'd have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of quitting to go work in retail. It might be worth it in terms of the stress I deal with. I certainly would not go through 4 years of college only to make a few bucks more than unskilled workers.

Of course, what will most likely happen is that my wages will go up when minimum-wage earners get more money in their pockets. This is what is known as, "moving the goalposts." The poorest people will get a boost in their pay, which will be negated by proportional increases to all other income-brackets.

Don't warehouse workers get paid more than minimum wage already? I would think that they do, or that they used to do. Forklift operators surely get more than the minimum wage.

I wouldn't say that the gains are negated. It goes in that direction though. Some might get automatic raises, but others would not. I would think it'd be more "stay the same" than "negated", but definitely the min wage workers wouldn't be the only ones seeing a rise in their wages. To the extent that unemployment would be caused by this - more people making, spending more money - would tend to decrease any unemployment effects.

[parocks]

If you are now saying that the wage paid to any employee is completely between him and his employer and can be as low as $0.01/hour,I must apologize,I have totally misunderstood you during this entire thread.

Figure out what the word "forced" means.

It's important to know the difference, especially since Obamacare forces you to buy insurance.

And with the minimum wage, no one is forcing anybody to do anything.

[mad cow]

Figure out what the word "forced" means.

It's important to know the difference, especially since Obamacare forces you to buy insurance.

And with the minimum wage, no one is forcing anybody to do anything.

So it is a minimum wage suggestion rather than a minimum wage law?
If McDonalds started paying all their minimum wage employees $5.00/hour there would be no repercussions from the government?

[parocks]

So it is a minimum wage suggestion rather than a minimum wage law?
If McDonalds started paying all their minimum wage employees $5.00/hour there would be no repercussions from the government?

Remember, "forced".

[mad cow]

Remember, "forced".

So McDonalds is not "forced" to pay minimum wage and could start paying all of their minimum wage employees $5.00/hour tomorrow without any legal repercussions from the government?

[gwax23]

So McDonalds is not "forced" to pay minimum wage and could start paying all of their minimum wage employees $5.00/hour tomorrow without any legal repercussions from the government?

Dont waste your time on him. Hes a troll.

[Keith and stuff]

Figure out what the word "forced" means.

It's important to know the difference, especially since Obamacare forces you to buy insurance.

And with the minimum wage, no one is forcing anybody to do anything.

Obamacare certainly doesn't force me to buy anything. I don't make enough money to qualify for what you are talking about. But then, if I did, NH law says there is no Obamacare mandate. But even if there was, there is a fine if you make a bunch of money and don't get Obama approved health insurance.

The minimum wage requirement is much more about force. If you don't pay it, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you will be jailed or completely closed. If you resist the jail or closure, you will be tased or killed.

[MelissaWV]

Yet, no one is FORCED to DO anything.

Similar arguments can be made. But there is no FORCING to DO, like there is with Obamacare.

What happens if I don't pay my workers at least minimum wage?

[Keith and stuff]

What happens if I don't pay my workers at least minimum wage?

You will be fined. If you refuse to pay, your company will be closed or you will be sued or arrested. If you resist any of these things, you will likely be shot with a firearm.

[MelissaWV]

You will be fined. If you refuse to pay, your company will be closed or you will be sued or arrested. If you resist any of these things, you will likely be shot with a firearm.

Well I guess it's not force if I have so many choices! :D

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The minimum wage requirement is much more about force. If you don't pay it, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you will be jailed or completely closed. If you resist the jail or closure, you will be tased or killed.

Yep. Forget the economic arguments for a moment. People should think about what they value. People think they are somehow a beneficiary of minimum wage without realizing the process that devalues freedom.

Reminds me of that phrase (and I need to look up who said it): A government big enough to give you everything you want--is big enough to take everything you have.

[parocks]

What happens if I don't pay my workers at least minimum wage?

There's no FORCING going on.

[parocks]

Yep. Forget the economic arguments for a moment. People should think about what they value. People think they are somehow a beneficiary of minimum wage without realizing the process that devalues freedom.

Reminds me of that phrase (and I need to look up who said it): A government big enough to give you everything you want--is big enough to take everything you have.

I don't think that there are too many people here that don't recognize that most things are all Fd up.

Want the Fed Gov to stop taking our money and building drones and spying.

The min wage law is one of the better ones.

We're mixing up arguments.

Argument 1) - what's the ideal situation?

Argument 2) - what should be done, now, because we're so very very far from an ideal situation?

Argument 1) - most would agree - free market all the way.
Argument 2) - because the government takes our money and spends it on spies and drones, we don't have the money to spend it at the store. There is no free market, and therefore the magic invisible hand isn't there. Because it's all f'd up, we need laws to keep people from starving. Too many people use Argument 1, when we're in situation 2.

[parocks]

Well I guess it's not force if I have so many choices! :D

FORCED - You MUST do something.

I think you're thinking about PROHIBITED.
Where PROHIBITED - You CAN'T do something.

They both have to do with things, and doing them, so I can understand the confusion.

And if you like arguing, and you don't really care that much about the specific meanings of words, I can see how the 2 concepts are related.

But saying you CAN'T do something is not at all the same as saying you MUST do something.

With the Minimum Wage law, the Gov't isn't saying at all that you MUST do something.

With Obamacare, the Gov't is saying you MUST do something.

Since the Gov't saying that you MUST do something is much much worse than the Gov't saying you CAN'T do something, I think it's useful to understand the distinctions between the 2 terms.

[parocks]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/08/06/choice-at-the-supermarket-is-our-food-system-the-perfect-oligopoly/

Forbes magazine calling our food system an oligopoly.

more links about supermarkets, oligopoly

http://www.dolphinessays.com/essays/economics/oligopoly-market-structure-in-uk-supermarket-industry-and-benefit-of-consumers.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/tmobile-verizon-monopoly-oligopoly-business-practices.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=FL-hSGqSkSEC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=supermarket+oligopoly+hannaford&source=bl&ots=v16zQH4eN2&sig=2PtkeeDnKo8-C7hmcb92FFQr8-0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kk6IUquJCLDNsQTjk4CICg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=supermarket%20oligopoly%20hannaford&f=false

[eproxy100]

"Democracy is the road to socialism" - Karl Marx

[gwax23]

FORCED - You MUST do something.

I think you're thinking about PROHIBITED.
Where PROHIBITED - You CAN'T do something.

They both have to do with things, and doing them, so I can understand the confusion.

And if you like arguing, and you don't really care that much about the specific meanings of words, I can see how the 2 concepts are related.

But saying you CAN'T do something is not at all the same as saying you MUST do something.

With the Minimum Wage law, the Gov't isn't saying at all that you MUST do something.

With Obamacare, the Gov't is saying you MUST do something.

Since the Gov't saying that you MUST do something is much much worse than the Gov't saying you CAN'T do something, I think it's useful to understand the distinctions between the 2 terms.

When you can win the argument retreat to....semantics.

[bolil]

FORCED - You MUST do something.

I think you're thinking about PROHIBITED.
Where PROHIBITED - You CAN'T do something.

They both have to do with things, and doing them, so I can understand the confusion.

And if you like arguing, and you don't really care that much about the specific meanings of words, I can see how the 2 concepts are related.

But saying you CAN'T do something is not at all the same as saying you MUST do something.

With the Minimum Wage law, the Gov't isn't saying at all that you MUST do something.

With Obamacare, the Gov't is saying you MUST do something.

Since the Gov't saying that you MUST do something is much much worse than the Gov't saying you CAN'T do something, I think it's useful to understand the distinctions between the 2 terms.
So saying, "You must pay your workers 9$ an hour," is not saying you must do something?

[parocks]

When you can win the argument retreat to....semantics.

I'm trying to underline the key distinction between Obamacare, where people are actually forced to buy insurance,
and pretty much every law. Yes, we know that laws are restrictions on freedom. But Obamacare is a special
kind of law.

It's a real distinction. A notable distinction. We don't want to blur the edges between being forced to do something, and forced not to do something.
We really don't. Being forced to do something is much worse than being forced not to do something. It's important to keep that distinction clear.

[parocks]

So saying, "You must pay your workers 9$ an hour," is not saying you must do something?

You don't have to have workers. You CAN'T pay workers less than $9. You could pay your workers, if you choose to have workers, $9 or $19. But you don't have to have workers. I don't have workers.

[GunnyFreedom]

There's no FORCING going on.

well, except for the enFORCEment of the regulatory register. but everyone does that. right? so rock on.

[Keith and stuff]

I think parocks has a point. McDonald's should agree with him and fire 5-10 people at every store. It should then get 5-10 interns that sleep 4 to a room at a house near the place. In addition to free housing and utilities, they should be given $400 a month in McD's bucks to spend at the rest. If they turn out to be good, they should be hired as contract workers with no benefits and the equivalent of pay equaling $9 an hour. At anytime, they would be subject to fire. Is that your ideal plan for fast food parocks? I think the current plan where workers get paid on average, the equivalent of what, $11 an hour in pay and benefits is better but maybe that's too much money? Or the fast food workers at Costco that average what, $20 an hour in pay and benefits?

[parocks]

I think parocks has a point. McDonald's should agree with him and fire 5-10 people at every store. It should then get 5-10 interns that sleep 4 to a room at a house near the place. In addition to free housing and utilities, they should be given $400 a month in McD's bucks to spend at the rest. If they turn out to be good, they should be hired as contract workers with no benefits and the equivalent of pay equaling $9 an hour. At anytime, they would be subject to fire. Is that your ideal plan for fast food parocks? I think the current plan where workers get paid on average, the equivalent of what, $11 an hour in pay and benefits is better but maybe that's too much money? Or the fast food workers at Costco that average what, $20 an hour in pay and benefits?

KFC worker - $7.55 an hour. Anyway, my "plan" is just keep it the same as always since 1938. Mininum wage, with periodic raises for inflation. 9$ seems fine to me.

[MelissaWV]

You don't have to have workers. You CAN'T pay workers less than $9. You could pay your workers, if you choose to have workers, $9 or $19. But you don't have to have workers. I don't have workers.

You don't have to have insurance. You can pay the fine.

[kcchiefs6465]

You don't have to have workers. You CAN'T pay workers less than $9. You could pay your workers, if you choose to have workers, $9 or $19. But you don't have to have workers. I don't have workers.
Mind blown.

[kcchiefs6465]

KFC worker - $7.55 an hour. Anyway, my "plan" is just keep it the same as always since 1938. Mininum wage, with periodic raises for inflation. 9$ seems fine to me.
How about no minimum wage, and a by and large elimination of inflation through the abolishing of the Fed and an implementation of a 100% reserve bank and a commodity backed currency?

Even using the flawed CPI calculations, the minimum wage would have to be some $17.50 to be comparable to 1975. If you were to try to enforce that, you would demolish the economy. (not to mention tyrannize people)

[nbruno322]

The Minimum Wage and Unemployment in Australia

http://www.internationalman.com/78-global-perspectives/1039-the-minimum-wage-and-unemployment-in-australia