Are you saying well-paid people shouldn't want badly-paid people to be better compensated? If the people with socio-economic power don't stand behind pay raises, poor people are screwed, because they won't get it by themselves.

Apples and oranges. The government does not determine what the union boss gets paid.

Meanwhile, raising the minimum wage devalues the dollar.

Other far less deserving people make a lot more than that. Is this another 'unions are evil' thing?

Actually it is a fake charity type thing. Mr. Trumka is making $322k/year. If the minimum wage hike goes through he gets a raise even though he makes nothing close to the minimum wage.

Think how much more the secretarial staff where he works could be paid if he'd just agree to spread some of his pay around. Or be ordered to do so by decree.

The reason union bosses keep pushing for increases in the minimum wage is not charity for nonunion workers, but because they write their contracts so that increases in the minimum wage cause automatic increases in their wages. I love people who think unions really care about the "little people". My dad was rising in the ranks of the union when he was younger and he said what he saw there made him get out. They don't care about workers. They care about feathering their own nests. You are deluded if you think otherwise. Why do you think there has been such a close association between unions and organized crime?

I do find it a bit -- well, not sure of the words -- may be self serving. I mean if the minimum wage goes up many of the union wages go up so his organisation - if not himself -- will get more money.

Is it known how well his staff is paid? A few years ago at my brother's union that was a bit of a controversy. The union hq people were being paid way better than those jobs would generally pay - like 4x. (according to my brother at the time).

"Or be ordered to do so by decree."

Really? YOU said this?

YOU suggested that an income be determined by force?

Have you lost your mind?

Meanwhile - it is NOT the NUMBER of dollars your labor earns you that matters. It is what they are WORTH.

Rad-
I think Amy was being sarcastic bc I can't imagine her seriously saying that the money should be forcibly redistributed.

Radwaste Says:

"Meanwhile, raising the minimum wage devalues the dollar."

You continue to repeat this unsupported claim even after I have demonstrated to you that the economic data we have available suggests this isn't true.

All of the inflationary data we have available over the last ~30 years actually shows that the rate of inflation has decreased during time periods after a minimum raise hike.

Now I am not suggesting that raising the minimum wage actually reducing inflation... but to suggest that it enhances inflation is the direct opposite of what the data shows us.

At this point in time your position is contradictory to the economic data we have collected.

In other words, it appears at this point that your position on this issue is driven by ideology and immune to facts.

Just to inject further rationality into this discussion, there are numerous academic reports and studies that also demonstrate that raising the minimum wage does not in and of itself result in inflation. Here is one example (and there are MANY others, but I am limited to about 1 link here per post so all you get is this one):

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/asean_economic_bulletin/v028/28.3.cuong.html

Let me quote:

"It is found that the minimum wage increases did not increase inflation."

It doesn't get much more direct than this.

The belief that raising the minimum wage in and of itself results in inflation is not supported by the data we have available.

It is time to stop putting forth this stupidity about the direct relationship between the minimum wage and inflation as if it were a fact.

Artemis, honey...

What happens in the flea market when you give everybody an extra dollar?

What happens to college tuition when state programs offer "HOPE" scholarships?

Why is a 16-oz Coke™ $1.50 today, rather than the 15¢ it was 40 years ago? Manufacturing them is cheaper now.

You know, I'd just like an answer to two simple questions:

1) If it's a good thing to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, why not force it to be $100/hr?

2) What do you call an economic system where government tells you what you must pay employees?

Regardless of what else you might offer, do notice that you are supporting #2 - and that the same government that tells an employer what they must pay and what benefits to offer can also tell the public what they can earn and keep. The Affordable Care Act has already put us on that road. Like it?

Radwaste,

Do you understand the difference between theory and practice?

You keep talking about hypothetical examples and trying to deduce what the economic consequences will be.

The problem you fail to address... that you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la" about is that we do not need to consider this issue in the abstract.

We have data... we have examples.

All of the data we have, all of the examples we have suggest that you are wrong.

Not just a little wrong mind you... but totally and completely wrong.

The data if anything suggests the opposite of what you are saying.

So what do rational people do when the data and their own pet theory disagree? They consider the very real possibility that their theory is missing some key elements, that perhaps they are oversimplifying things and failing to capture reality.

CBy contrast, what do ideologues do when confronted with data that contradicts their preconceived notions about how the world functions?

They do like you are doing, ignore the data entirely and desperately cling to their unsupported ideas.

Sorry Radwaste... but you are wrong... the data doesn't agree with you.

All the hypothetical examples in the universe don't solve that problem for you.

Radwaste,

I will also answer your questions lest you accuse me of ignoring them:

"1) If it's a good thing to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, why not force it to be $100/hr?"

This is a stupid question.

Didn't anyone ever teach you that it is the dose that makes the poison?

If I tell you that it is a good thing for you to drink 8 cups of water a day, why on earth shouldn't you drink 5 gallons?

Well for one thing, 5 gallons of water per day will kill you... 8 cups will keep you healthy.

The same goes for the economy, the optimal level of the minimum wage is not going to be arbitrarily high. This is an optimization problem Radwaste, this isn't one of those problems where more is always better or less is always better... the optimal solution resides somewhere in the middle.

"2) What do you call an economic system where government tells you what you must pay employees?"

Setting a minimum wage does not tell employers what they must pay their employees... it tells employers what they must not pay their employees.

This is an important distinction.

The government doesn't mandate that employers pay their employees the minimum wage, they are free to pay any amount greater than that.

Now that we have that out of the way... what do we call an economy where the government sets certain rules?

It is a regulated form of capitalism.

Regulation is not in and of itself antithetical to the capitalist enterprise.

Only extremists think that regulation of any kind is contrary to capitalism.

"Setting a minimum wage does not tell employers what they must pay their employees... it tells employers what they must not pay their employees."

Oh my God – you have resorted to Newspeak!

I am not the "ideologue" here. I have employed people. You are supporting an arbitrary declaration by government that the exact same amount of work is now worth more money.

That's the theoretical part here – not the actual experience that I've had.
It is not theoretical at all to ask a small business employer what they have to do to pay UNSKILLED employees more. Such employers already make evaluations as to what their workers are really worth.
No, you are trying to tell me that economists and government agents are not the theoreticians – I am. You're not just wrong, you've drunk the Kool-Aid!

Currently, I work for a federal contractor. Please tell me how it is in your best interest to pay me more for exactly the same work – by executive fiat.

Radwaste Says:

"I am not the "ideologue" here. I have employed people."

Yes... actually you are.

When you claim that raising the minimum wage causes devaluation of the dollar, you are saying that raising the minimum wage enhances the rate of inflation.

ALL of the data we have suggests this isn't the case.

That you cling to this believe in spite of the data that tells you that you are wrong makes you an ideologue.

It is time to take your head out of your ass and acknowledge reality.

The reality is that as best as we can tell, the minimum wage is not a significant driver of inflation.

You are wrong about this.

"It is not theoretical at all to ask a small business employer what they have to do to pay UNSKILLED employees more."

By definition is is a hypothetical.

Asking someone what they would do given a set of circumstances are are not in is exactly that it means to ask them about a hypothetical reality.

You are putting the hypothetical thoughts of a made up individual ahead of actual economic data that has been collected over the decades.

This data reflects what actually happens when the minimum wage is increased.

That is reality.

You keep living in a fantasy world where what you think happens trumps what actually occurs in the economy as a whole.

It is possible to measure inflation... we do this on a continual basis. The data does not support what you are saying.

I forgot to address this part:

"Currently, I work for a federal contractor. Please tell me how it is in your best interest to pay me more for exactly the same work – by executive fiat."

Since you work for a federal contractor your salary is already determined by what the government is willing to pay your employer.

I suppose you will voluntarily take a pay cut because it is in my best interest to pay you less... correct?

Stop acting like you care about what is in my best interest.

To some extent it would be in my best interest for you to work for minimum wage... I won't hold my breath waiting for you to volunteer for the pay decrease.

I do not know for certain, but I would be willing to bet given your line of work that the government has some regulations in place regarding what your employer has to provide you in terms of health care and PPE... it is most likely a requirement of the contract won by your employer.

There is nothing inherently wrong with regulation.

The devil is always in the details.

Radwaste,

One final point because I think I have isolated the problem you are having.

Is it your contention that outside of minimum wage increases that the inflation rate would be 0%???

Because that is the only way your statement here makes any sense:

"You are supporting an arbitrary declaration by government that the exact same amount of work is now worth more money."

Here is the problem letting the minimum wage stagnate... inflation occurs whether or not the minimum wage changes.

Inflation is a feature of our economy that is independent of the minimum wage.

As a result here is what happens (we are going to go theoretical here so you should feel quite comfortable).

A hypothetical "person A" works for minimum wage in year the year 1997... they get $5.15 per hour.

Then in 2007 hypothetical "person B" works for minimum wage and also gets paid $5.15 per hour.

During that 10 year period there were no federal minimum wage hikes.

Here is the kicker though, during that same time period inflation brought the CPI from ~164 to ~202.

What does this mean?... it means that "person B" earning minimum wage in 2007 has only a fraction of the purchasing power of "person A" working for minimum wage in 1997.

I'm not arguing that the same work should now be "worth more money", I am arguing that the same job should have similar buying power.

Inflation is happening anyway... it isn't driven by the minimum wage.

Letting the minimum wage stagnate despite inflation occurring anyway doesn't make any sense unless you believe that as time goes on people should earn less and less for the same amount of work.

Artemis,

If you are using the CPI as the index for inflation (which most of these studies do, because the economists behind them support an Keynesian, government driven economic policy, which goes along with their desire to raise the minimum wage), you are vastly underestimating inflation. True inflation includes the more volatile items like Food and Energy, which the generally used CPI compiled by the University of Michigan does not recognize as part of inflation. If you increase the minimum wage, food prices MUST go up, and they have in the past 8 years, since the minimum wage went to $7.25/hr. A loaf of bread was $0.98 in 2006, and that same loaf is now $1.98. Explain that away.

More to the point, CPI is rigged, in the same way that the government's published unemployment statistics are rigged. They just redefine the calculation until they get the result that they want. The contents of the CPI "market basekt" are tweaked constantly, and there are a lot of things that they ignore, such as the fact that currently grocery manufacturers are decreaing package quantities to make price hikes less visible. (What was a 5-lb. bag of sugar two years ago is now a 4-lb. bag, at the same price.)

The other thing Artemis ignores is the job losses that occur after a minimum wage hike, which tends to offset the inflationary effects. When the minimum wage goes up, economic activity slows down and jobs get moved offshore, replaced by automation, or just disappear as the employers go out of business. Minimum wage hikes were a big contributor to the decade-long recession of the 1970s.

Artemis has never driven an automobile, or negotiated the price of one.

Artemis: "...there are numerous academic reports and studies that also demonstrate that raising the minimum wage does not in and of itself result in inflation."

If so, then maybe it's because a change in the minimum wage would affect very few workers and have a very small effect on the total amount of money paid to hourly workers in the U.S.

About 4.7% of all hourly paid workers age 16 and older are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. So 95.3% are paid more.

About 3% of workers age 25 and older are paid at or below minimum wage. So 97% are paid more.

More than half of workers who are paid minimum wage or less are under 25.

About 21% of employed teenagers are paid the minimum wage. So about 79% of employed teenagers are paid more than the minimum wage.

About 10% of hourly paid workers with less than a high school diploma, 4% of workers with a high school diploma and no college, and about 2% of college graduates earn the federal minimum wage or less.

(Information available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website).

Since the average hourly wage in the U.S. (about $24/hr in 2013) is more than three times the federal minimum wage, those 4.7% probably earn less than 1.5% of all the money paid to hourly workers in the U.S. So a 40% increase in their pay over the next few years would result in what... maybe a 1% increase in the total amount paid to hourly workers over those few years?

If $1 could buy 12 minutes of unskilled labor in 2005, but will buy 6 minutes of unskilled labor in 2015, wouldn't that $1 be worth less, at least relative to the value of labor?

Raising the minimum wage may not "in and of itself result in inflation", any more than an increase in the price of a loaf of bread would in and of itself result in inflation. They're each just one of many factors that contribute to inflation.

The average hourly wage today is more than 40 times higher than it was in 1932. Could there be any relationship between that and the inflation that has occurred since 1932?

I have a silver dollar in my pocket that was worth about two hours of unskilled labor or 15 loaves of decent quality bread in 1930. It's still worth about the same today. But the dollar bills in my pocket are worth about 6 minutes of unskilled labor or not even half a loaf of bread.

Also I think it's interesting that in 1932 that same silver dollar (90% silver) could have bought more than four times its weight in silver bullion (99.9% silver)

spqr2008 Says:

"If you are using the CPI as the index for inflation (which most of these studies do, because the economists behind them support an Keynesian, government driven economic policy, which goes along with their desire to raise the minimum wage), you are vastly underestimating inflation."

This critique is immaterial to the issue at hand.

What you are essentially saying is that the CPI is not a perfect measure of "absolute inflation".

However in evaluating whether or not raising the minimum wage enhances the rate of inflation we do not need a perfect measure of "absolute inflation".

Instead all we need is a good measure of "relative inflation". For that purpose CPI is more than adequate.

Let me help you understand what we are trying to do by way of an example.

Suppose I were to provide you with a scale that was not perfectly calibrated (your scale at home would be an example of such a device unless you recently had it certified by NIST). With such a scale you would not be able to say with perfect accuracy how much anything weighed... there would always be some error associated with the imperfect nature of the devices calibration.

Yet, if I were to ask you to tell me which of two different people was heavier, your scale would be perfectly suitable for such a task.

The point is that even if it isn't perfectly calibrated it is still well suited for measuring relative weights.

The same goes for the CPI. For the purposes of this discussion we are only interested in the relative inflationary rate during times when the minimum wage was hiked versus times when it was not.

It is for this reason that your critique has no merit in this case.

"If you increase the minimum wage, food prices MUST go up, and they have in the past 8 years, since the minimum wage went to $7.25/hr. A loaf of bread was $0.98 in 2006, and that same loaf is now $1.98. Explain that away."

According to the following website the price of a loaf of bread in 2008 was $2.79 and the price of that same loaf of bread in 2013 was $1.98:

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html

How exactly do you explain the price of bread dropping by ~30% during a time period when the minimum wage was raised if as you say "if you increase the minimum wage, food prices MUST go up"?

If seems to me that in 2009 they increased the minimum wage and the price of a loaf of bread fell by ~30%.

Again... the data and the facts do not support what you are saying.

The data suggests that you are wrong.

Cousin Dave Says:

"More to the point, CPI is rigged, in the same way that the government's published unemployment statistics are rigged. They just redefine the calculation until they get the result that they want."

This is known as a conspiracy theory.

You don't like the fact that the data suggests that you are wrong... so you simply claim the data set is rigged without one shred of proof to support your claim?

Alright, you choose the metric... what metric that measures inflation supports what you are saying?

I've looked at the data... ALL of it suggests that you are wrong.

You are welcome to provide data to back up what you are saying. The problem you and others who believe as you do have is that no such data exists.

You believe as you do because you are ideologically driven to believe it... to you the facts are unimportant.

Ken R Says:

"If so, then maybe it's because a change in the minimum wage would affect very few workers and have a very small effect on the total amount of money paid to hourly workers in the U.S.

About 4.7% of all hourly paid workers age 16 and older are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. So 95.3% are paid more."

Finally there is someone with something intelligent to say.

You are right... part of the reason raising the minimum wage has a negligible effect upon inflation is that it doesn't actually constitute a major change in the economy.

It doesn't flood the market with copious quantities of cash as some others here erroneously speculate.

My only contention is that the claim the raising the minimum wage directly results in devaluation of the dollar (i.e., inflation) is factually in error and not supported by the data.

There are other far more significant economic forces at play that drive inflation... the effect of a minimum wage hike would be lost in the noise of the more prominent inflationary drivers given the current wage proposals.

What many people here fail to adequately recognize is that inflation occurs whether or not the minimum wage is raised and that the rate of inflation is insensitive to the minimum wage.

I could explain why our nation and the people within it generally desire inflation... inflation occurs as a matter of design.

As a matter of fact the government and most of the public would be quite upset of we entered a deflationary period.

Look, it's really simple: If you don't want minimum wage, don't have minimum skills.

Flynne,

It is only that "simple" if you really don't care about your fellow human beings.

Ultimately there are going to be people out there who are less specialized than others.

The question isn't whether or not those with fewer skills should be paid more than those with greater specialization/education (the answer to that is obviously no).

The question is if we should allow wages for those with "minimum skills" to have no lower bound.

As a society we have decided that a lower bound should exist such that those with minimum skills are not taken advantage of.

Your trite response is the logical equivilant of the following phrase:

"If you don't want to have children, don't have sex."

Your "simple" response is no more intelligent than abstinence only education.

People with minimum skills are always going to be paid minimum wage... the question is what if anything should that minimum wage be.

The answer to that question takes a little more thought and consideration than you seem to be willing to give to the issue.

Trumka managed 30 years ago to get himself elected President of the United Mine Workers. He had put in four years as a miner and then contended the one year he had previously spent as a union lawyer counted toward the five year minimum time as a member necessary to run for the President's job. For whatever reasons, a critical mass of the UMW electorate did not mind.

Artemis: "People with minimum skills are always going to be paid minimum wage..."

Only by employers to whom their minimum skills are worth at least as much as the minimum wage. The higher the minimum wage the fewer employers there are to whom minimum skills are worth the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage might result in some workers having more money to spend and some others having none.

Flynne,

It is only that "simple" if you really don't care about your fellow human beings.

Oh horseshit. I care about everybody but that doesn't mean that everybody deserves to make more money than they're worth If I don't have the skills to earn $30 an hour, I shouldn't be paid $30 an hour. Fortunately, I have crazy good office management skills, so I am worth what I'm paid. Flipping burgers is not a payable skill; my daughters could do that when they were 5.

Minimum wage is for high school kids who are just starting to learn about earning a living and getting used to being paid for it. It's a STEPPING STONE for learning about how to work and assess your skills in order to BETTER YOURSELF. Anyone who tells you anything different has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, and you're just the buyer they're lookin for.

It is only that "simple" if you really don't care about your fellow human beings.

And how much money did you waste on you laptop and monthly internet connection you heartless greedy bastard?

Dont you know how many people the money you throw away on needless extravagance could help?

Ken R Says:

"The higher the minimum wage the fewer employers there are to whom minimum skills are worth the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage might result in some workers having more money to spend and some others having none."

Many highly qualified people have studied this issue in detail.

As it turns out, modest increases to the minimum wage do not appear to negatively impact employment rates.

Your presumption is incorrect.

Flynne Says:

"I care about everybody but that doesn't mean that everybody deserves to make more money than they're worth If I don't have the skills to earn $30 an hour, I shouldn't be paid $30 an hour."

What an abstract concept... what someone is "worth" is not this objective thing you are making it out to be.

It wasn't that long ago in our nations history that what someone was "worth" was determined more by things like gender and skin color than by skill and motivation.

Our economy is not, nor has it ever been, efficient enough to properly ascertain the "worth" of an individual worker.

As a matter of fact, if it is possible an employer will pay you less than you are worth because it improves the bottom line and they get to keep a larger cut of the profits.

Businesses do not have an incentive to pay anyone what they are "worth"... they have an incentive to pay as little as possible.

If you define paying people as little as possible as being synonymous with paying people what they are worth then I will reiterate that I don't actually think you care too much about your fellow human beings.

"Fortunately, I have crazy good office management skills, so I am worth what I'm paid."

Flynne... I hate to break it to you, but EVERYONE thinks they are worth what they are paid or that they deserve to be paid more.

I have yet to meet the individual who thinks they are overpaid and deserve a pay cut.

That being said, most people who are highly qualified at what they do don't tend to use the words "crazy good" to describe their level of expertise.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are an office manager for some small business like a doctors office and that you do not have a particularly prestigious educational background because it isn't a requirement for the job functions you perform. Am I close?

"Flipping burgers is not a payable skill; my daughters could do that when they were 5."

Yes, of course... I am quite certain your 5 year old daughter would have been able to handle being a fry cook. Especially since most 5 year olds aren't tall enough to see what they are cooking.

Out of curiosity, when your 5 year old was flipping burgers, were you watching her closely by the oven or the grill?... because if she needed constant supervision then no, she was not qualified for the job you describe... and if you didn't supervise a 5 year old while she was near an open flame or a hot burner I have to seriously question your judgment as a parent.

"It's a STEPPING STONE for learning about how to work and assess your skills in order to BETTER YOURSELF."

This is precisely why the minimum wage needs to keep up with inflation.

If the minimum wage fails to keep up with inflation it offers one generation of teenagers a huge advantage over the next.

There is no reason why a teen who worked in 2007 should have had to work 30% more hours than a teen in 1997 to get the equivalent purchasing power.

What you have to explain is why a teen from the late 90's should have a financial leg up over a teen from the late 00's for doing the same exact job.

Artemis, the link to my blog explanation was no good for you, and you are really, really good at including all sorts of other economic activity in this...

...but what you are essentially arguing is that a government mandate for everyone to pay more dollars for the same hour of work isn't really more expensive.

That's where you leave reason behind: at the beginning. That's the Newspeak. "Choco ration's going up! Twenty-five grams a week!"

The price of bread? Bringing that up shows a complete lack of discipline in discussing the issue, because 1) market forces determine its cost, and 2) automation and changes to delivery systems have affected that cost. Ignorance of those factors poisons that well thoroughly.

lujlp Says:

"And how much money did you waste on you laptop and monthly internet connection you heartless greedy bastard?

Dont you know how many people the money you throw away on needless extravagance could help?"

I really don't think you fathom how very stupid this statement is.

You do realize of course that computers are a necessity for most modern day professions, correct?

Something isn't an extravagance if it is a minimum requirement for you to fulfill your job function.

That you view computers and the internet as a pure extravagance it makes me wonder what it is you do for a living.

Just so you can imagine how silly you sound to me right now, please consider that there are people out there who are software engineers who you could have been saying this to.

What would you expect them to do, jot down computer code on scraps of paper?

In the modern age pretty much every highly specialized job requires both computers and internet access.

Anything that is required for ones job can hardly be defined as a "waste" or "extravagant".

Radwaste Says:

"...but what you are essentially arguing is that a government mandate for everyone to pay more dollars for the same hour of work isn't really more expensive."

You seem to have a difficult time understanding the difference between "more dollars" and "equivalent purchasing power".

You do like hypothetical scenarios though, so let's try this one:

Imagine we live in a world where the minimum wage is $5 per hour in the year zero.

Now imagine that 10 years go by and the minimum wage has remained exactly the same in terms of dollar amount, but over that time there has been ~3% inflation per year.

What does this mean for a person in the year 10 who works for minimum wage?

It means that they are actually earning the equivalent ~$3.75 of year zero dollars per hour.

What sense does this make?

By failing to keep the minimum wage up with inflation you only make it harder and harder for new generations to try and get ahead.

You are purposefully denying them the advantages you had during a time when that minimum wage job actually paid more in terms of purchasing power.

If the idea of the minimum wage job is to help unskilled workers get ahead in life, then the minimum wage needs to be sufficient for them to have some disposable income with which to better themselves.

If minimum wage workers only earn enough to scrape by they will not have the time or the resources to gain new skills... they will in essence be locked into that minimum wage job which as Flynne said was supposed to be a stepping stone.

Minimum wage jobs cannot effectively act as a stepping stone if the purchasing power provided by those jobs is permitted to go to an arbitrarily low value.

"The price of bread? Bringing that up shows a complete lack of discipline in discussing the issue"

Then take it up with spqr2008 in their post on October 13, 2014 5:37 AM where they said the following:

"If you increase the minimum wage, food prices MUST go up, and they have in the past 8 years, since the minimum wage went to $7.25/hr. A loaf of bread was $0.98 in 2006, and that same loaf is now $1.98. Explain that away."

I was actually pointing out the stupidity of their point... which you have reiterated with your points 1 and 2 which are both correct.

Artemis, you've just exposed a weakness of a minimum wage standard - NOT A STRENGTH.

The issue is really simple, though it has escaped you: The same entity that prints money tells you how many of them is required to buy an hour of work - which cannot be changed.

That's the problem: government interference with the market.

We are also ignoring illegal immigrant labor, which, in return, ignores all of the above.

Wow. I just saw something about luxury at the minimum wage level. Since when is that an entitlement?

Here's yet another exercise: what do you think will happen to YOUR food prices if the legions of illegals in the USA were suddenly granted that minimum wage?
Why, you'll get a speedy education as to the source of inflation! More of your budget goes to food, you need more $$, you ask for a raise... inflation...

Radwaste Says:

"Artemis, you've just exposed a weakness of a minimum wage standard - NOT A STRENGTH."

This is a statement of your opinion... if you want it to be considered as fact or anything other than your personal perspective you need to provide data and facts.

That is the primary thing missing from your entire argument... none of the data supports what you are saying... none of the facts support what you are saying.

You just keep reiterating your unsupported opinion without concern for facts and evidence.

"That's the problem: government interference with the market."

Again you make it clear what your perspective is... you do not believe that the markets should be regulated at all.

Your position is no different than someone suggesting that professional sports should be played without referees, umpires, or officials... just let the players and the teams sort everything out... they can be trusted to play fair and by the rules... no one will cheat, or lie, or try to take advantage of the system... right???

Only a fool would suggest that professional sports should be played in an unregulated fashion.

Similarly we have decades of evidence that shows what happens when the market is left to operate regulation free.

To put it simply, the only thing worse than a regulated market... is an unregulated one.

"Wow. I just saw something about luxury at the minimum wage level. Since when is that an entitlement?"

What the hell are you talking about?

Who said anything about luxury at the minimum wage level?

I think you are having difficulty following this conversation.

You have attributed to me statements of other people already, and are now confusing different threads of this discussion.

Try and focus.

"Here's yet another exercise: what do you think will happen to YOUR food prices if the legions of illegals in the USA were suddenly granted that minimum wage?

Why, you'll get a speedy education as to the source of inflation! More of your budget goes to food, you need more $$, you ask for a raise... inflation..."

Again you are theory crafting in the abstract.

The data doesn't suggest anything you are saying is true.

You are pulling this out of your ass and stating it as fact.

Also... a miniscule fraction of my budget goes to food... I actually wouldn't care if my food budget increased if it meant more opportunity for those less fortunate than myself.

You seem quite content to let others dig for scraps in the dirt just so you don't have to part with an extra few cents.

Are you really that financially strapped?

Artemis, you really like to pontificate, don't you? You're full of it. Raising minimum wage for unskilled workers does NOTHING to improve ANYONE'S bottom line.

Flynne,

What I like to do is inject facts into discussions where people seem to be talking out of their rear ends.

The difference between someone like you and myself is that phrases like this one actually mean something to me:

"It's a STEPPING STONE for learning about how to work and assess your skills in order to BETTER YOURSELF."

Please note how very quickly you went from talking about minimum wage jobs as places where unskilled workers could better themselves to suddenly saying this:

"Raising minimum wage for unskilled workers does NOTHING to improve ANYONE'S bottom line."

Let's face is Flynne... you have zero concern about minimum wage workers being enabled to better their life... you are concerned primarily about the bottom line for the business.

This is why I said that you don't seem to care about your fellow human beings.

You are perfectly content with unskilled impoverished workers remaining unskilled and impoverished because they are denied suitable disposable income to actually better themselves.

That is what it really boils down to... I actually want them to be able to gain more marketable skills... you apparently couldn't care less if they remained trapped in that minimum wage job for the rest of their life because they barely make enough to keep a roof over their head.

Let's face it Artemis, you have NO idea what you're talking about. Minimum wage jobs are all about minimum wage earners being "able to gain more marketable skills" - that's what minimum wage jobs are for - you learn more marketable skills SO YOU CAN MOVE ON TO BETTER-PAYING JOBS. Minimum wage jobs are NOT supposed to be CAREER CHOICES. Minimum wage jobs are STEPPING STONES to learning MORE MARKETABLE SKILLS. What is it about this that is so hard for you to understand. If someone remains "trapped in that minimum wage job for the rest of their life because they barely make enough to keep a roof over their head" that's THEIR CHOICE, or their problem. LEARNING MORE MARKETABLE SKILLS is what gets you a BETTER PAYING job.
Are you truly that dense that you don't get this??

Flynne Says:

"Minimum wage jobs are NOT supposed to be CAREER CHOICES. Minimum wage jobs are STEPPING STONES to learning MORE MARKETABLE SKILLS."

That is all well and good... but here is thing about stepping stones, they need to be spaced at intervals small enough such that someone can actually traverse the stream.

That is what you do not seem to comprehend, all the while you keep suggesting that I don't understand something.

It is quite the contrary actually, I understand that it is possible to space those stones so far apart from one another that someone can get stuck on one stone with no reasonable way to get to the next one.

What you don't seem to grasp is that someone doesn't learn more marketable skills while on the job at a minimum wage job. Those more marketable skills come from other places that cost money (i.e., college or trade school).

The only way for someone to use a minimum wage job as a stepping stone for something more is if the minimum wage provides enough money for that person to pay for rent, food, utilities... AND for career development.

If the minimum wage job only provides enough income for that person to pay rent and put food on the table then they do not have any funds left over to develop new skills that would enable them to move to a different job.

"What is it about this that is so hard for you to understand. If someone remains "trapped in that minimum wage job for the rest of their life because they barely make enough to keep a roof over their head" that's THEIR CHOICE, or their problem."

Remind me again about how much you care about other people???

It's their problem???

No Flynne... in a society it is all of our problem if the minimum wage drops to a level where people cannot afford to better themselves and move onto something else.

Are you truly so dense that you don't get this???

Look, it is fine that you are so selfish that you really don't care about anyone except yourself, but lucky for us most people do not agree with you which is why we have minimum wage laws in the first place.

Flynne,

I thought of a way to explain this in terms you are more likely to understand.

You keep talking about minimum wage jobs as stepping stones, however you are ignoring the incentives of the various parties involved.

The employee has an incentive to use the job as a stepping stone... society as a whole has an incentive for these individuals to use the job as a stepping stone... however there is one party whose incentive is to keep the employee so as not to invest in training a replacement, that party is the business itself.

The business has an incentive to keep that employee and hence may take actions that make it difficult for that individual to build up marketable skills that would enable them to leave.

One method for achieving this is to reduce wages to such a level that the employee does not have enough disposable income to afford alternative career development.

My contention is that it is reasonable then for society to impose laws on businesses that make it difficult or impossible for them to follow that incentive to it's logical end.

For you to argue otherwise is to suggest that people who work for minimum wage should somehow gather new skills without the resources to do so.

At present someone who works for minimum wage for 40 hours a week, and 52 weeks a year will earn ~$15K before taxes... closer to ~$12K after taxes.

Assuming this individual pays ~$600 per month for rent, they now have $4800 left over. Assuming ~$200 for food each month as they have $2400 left to cover utilities, clothing, and transportation.

At the present rate they do not have anything left with which to afford courses or specialized training.

How exactly is that minimum wage job a stepping stone to anything when the person in question can't afford any form of career/skill development?

To suggest that is is their problem and you have no interest in dealing with it is to suggest that you enjoy having people stuck in minimum wage jobs because you fear the increased competition at your level of employment because your skills are so marginal that it wouldn't take someone very long to get where you are if simply given even the most remote opportunity.

Amy,

That is a strawman argument.

At no point in this discussion have I stated that minimum wage jobs were intended for a lifetime.

It is incredibly dishonest of you to frame this discussion in the context that this was a point of disagreement.

I thought you have more integrity than that.

To illustrate my point that your statement results in a complete mischaracterization of the issues that in dispute, I will quote myself from earlier:

"If the minimum wage job only provides enough income for that person to pay rent and put food on the table then they do not have any funds left over to develop new skills that would enable them to move to a different job."

The discussion is about whether or not the current minimum wage is sufficient to enable minimum wage employees to finance career/skill development.

My contention is that the answer is no.

Flynne presumably would answer this question with yes.

That is the point of contention... not whether or not minimum wage jobs are supposed to be life long careers.

At no point in this discussion have I stated that minimum wage jobs were intended for a lifetime.

Then why do you support raising the wages for such jobs so as to allow someone to live off them for a lifetime?

You may not have said it in so many words, but its not hard to infer such a meaning, given what you have implied with your statmenets

lujlp says:

"Then why do you support raising the wages for such jobs so as to allow someone to live off them for a lifetime?"

Where did I say such a thing?

My contention is that the minimum wage should be sufficiently high so as to enable a minimum wage worker to afford skill/career development training outside of their minimum wage job.

If they are barely scraping by and just able to barely afford food and a roof over their head then those minimum wage jobs cannot function as a stepping stone to anything.

"You may not have said it in so many words, but its not hard to infer such a meaning, given what you have implied with your statmenets"

So basically what you are saying is that I have not made such an argument... but you and others feel perfectly comfortable putting words into my mouth because you have "inferred" things.

Well let me put you at ease and say that I am try to be very clear and transparent with my meaning.

I say what I mean and I try to be very precise about the words I choose... if I haven't said something explicitly it is safe to assume that it isn't involved in my position.

When someone infers one argument that another person hasn't made and then attacks that argument instead of the ones they have explicitly made, that is by definition a strawman argument.

I cannot be expect to defend a position I have not held.

I cannot be expect to defend a position I have not held.

You do realize this is the internet, right?

We expect all sorts of things. Most of them quite irrational

lujlp,

Let me amend my statement in the following way:

I cannot be *reasonably* expected to defend a position I have not held.

Artemis, you're still not getting it. Minimum wages jobs are NOT CAREER jobs. No one should EXPECT to live life being paid minimum wage. What Amy said is absolutely true: Minimum wage jobs are NOT LIFETIME jobs. They are STARTER jobs. The INCENTIVE is to earn money while learning new skills to get a BETTER-PAYING job.

Egad, I cannot believe that you cannot comprehend this.

Flynne Says:

"Artemis, you're still not getting it. Minimum wages jobs are NOT CAREER jobs. No one should EXPECT to live life being paid minimum wage."

No Flynne... YOU are not getting it.

You are not arguing against my stated position.

You have made up a position for me to argue against.

This is dishonest of you and intellectually lazy.

If you are incapable of actually arguing against my stated position then you have essentially already admitted you are wrong.

Flynne,

In fact, here is a challenge for you... please find one instance in this entire thread (I have written a lot so you have lots of material to work with) where I have stated that minimum wage jobs are "lifetime jobs".

This is what you keep arguing against... but I have never said this.

You are arguing against a strawman because my actual position is too strong for you to counter.

I think I finally understand the problem here... I am debating people who are illiterate.

That someone can even say this:

"What Amy said is absolutely true: Minimum wage jobs are NOT LIFETIME jobs."

AFTER I said the following:

"At no point in this discussion have I stated that minimum wage jobs were intended for a lifetime."

Suggests that they do not have the reading comprehension skills of an elementary school child.

That a person with such poor literacy would also argue how very skilled they are at their profession also strikes me as ironic.

Seriously... you claim to manage an office but are incapable of understanding plain English???

I'm not going to go around and around with you on this, you're too obtuse. You're blinded by your "do-gooder" attitude. Rainsing minimum wage will NOT give people incentive to better themselves for better paying jobs. PERIOD. You haven't got a clue. And you may not have stated "minimum wage jobs are LIFETIME jobs." but that is your implication, because there are people in minimum wage jobs trying to raise families, but that is NOT what minimum wage jobs are MEANT for, and THIS is what you cannot wrap your head around. Minimum wage jobs are a STARTING POINT for ANYONE entering the working world. If someone is so unskilled that they cannot find a job that pays them better, how is this ANYONE else's fault but THEIR OWN?? NO ONE OWES ANYONE A LIVING. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to create THEIR WORTH so that someone else will CHOOSE to PAY THEM THEIR WORTH. Please pull your head out of your ass, and use your brain instead of your rhetoric for a change.

Flynne,

There is nothing obtuse about it.

You adamantly refuse to present an argument against my stated perspective and instead make one up for me that is easier for you to argue against.

This is dishonest of you.

When you say something like this:

"And you may not have stated "minimum wage jobs are LIFETIME jobs." but that is your implication, because there are people in minimum wage jobs trying to raise families, but that is NOT what minimum wage jobs are MEANT for, and THIS is what you cannot wrap your head around."

It demonstrates over and over that you are either a liar... or that you are illiterate.

Beyond never having stated that minimum wage jobs are intended for a lifetime... I ALSO have never even once mentioned anyone supporting or raising a family on a minimum wage income.

You are clearly delusional.

What you continually fail to wrap you head around is anything I've actually stated and instead you live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

You're current claim is that I have "implied" that minimum wage jobs are for a lifetime because I have stated that people in minimum wage jobs are trying to raise families.

Here is a news flash for you... I NEVER said that either.

Stop pulling shit out of your ass and making things up that never happened and then declaring that I don't get something.

The only thing that has become abundantly obvious is that you do not know how to read.

You're right Artemis, I didn't read your long diatribes because they made very little sense, what I did read of them. You're advocating for a raise of minimum wage when it would clearly be detrimental to the working world and consumer world as we know it. Your obtuseness and strawman arguments are the stuff of leftist stupidity, and it astounds me that I'm even answering you when common sense and logic are foreign to your way of thinking.

Have a good evening.

Flynne Says:

"You're right Artemis, I didn't read your long diatribes because they made very little sense, what I did read of them."

So you didn't bother to read what I wrote or understand my perspective... yet you spent day after day telling me how it was I who didn't understand something.

You are no better than a worthless critic who fails to read/watch a book/movie but feels utterly qualified to leave a series of criticisms on amazon about how much the book/movie isn't worth buying or reading.

A mature adult with actual professional skills would know better than to do this. Your actions are the actions of a child.

"You're advocating for a raise of minimum wage when it would clearly be detrimental to the working world and consumer world as we know it."

Really???... would the sky fall as well chicken little?

You have demonstrated that you are a know nothing who just likes to hear herself talk about subjects she knows nothing about and has no interest in learning about.

You are an uninformed nitwit... but the worst kind of nitwit who actually believes their uninformed opinions carry more weight than facts or evidence.

This is why it took so long to even get you to admit that you weren't even following this conversation and just talking completely out of your ass.

"Your obtuseness and strawman arguments are the stuff of leftist stupidity, and it astounds me that I'm even answering you when common sense and logic are foreign to your way of thinking."

My obtuseness???... My strawman arguments???

Wow... there is some serious projection going on here.

Common sense and logic would require you to actually read and understand my position BEFORE criticizing it.

How is it logical to go in guns blazing into a discussion when you haven't the foggiest clue what the conversation is about or what the people involved are actually advocating?

You are an uneducated fool who can't even admit her own shortcomings.

A person of integrity, when confronted with the plain facts that they have gotten someone elses position completely wrong would apologize for having jumped the gun.

Clearly integrity is a foreign word to you.