A Little Fantasy...
Back when I was a kid, a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Today, a full-time minimum-wage job in America won't keep a mama and a baby out of poverty. Our movement is about making real, fundamental change to fix this.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 16, 2019
And a little reality:
I worked full time on minimum wage for 6 months of 1988 while living rent-free at my dad's house & not even drinking....and no, that was not enough to support much of anything.
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) February 16, 2019
And a little math:
Warren was born in 1949 so I'll be generous and say "her day" was 1969
— Jen the Libertarian (@jenniferm_q) February 17, 2019
The minimum wage was $1.30 an hour, which would put a 40 hour paycheck at $52 before taxes
I don't think anyone was supporting much of anything on that let alone a family of three
A minimum-wage job should be -- and has been -- a sort of starter job. Working at a bagel place, at McDonald's.
The reasonable (and fiscally sound thing to do) isn't to force businesses to overpay for labor. This just leads them to either shut their doors or find ways to replace the human labor with machines.
Of course, it's far easier to just legislate overpaying that address why some are unable to ever have more than minimum wage jobs -- a question which often has some un-PC answers (for example, about generation after generation of children parented by single mothers with no father in the picture).
If you raise the minimum wage, you raise the cost of labor. That raises the cost of providing goods and services across the board, which drives up prices.
At those higher prices, the increased minimum wage will leave the unskilled worker in the same boat he was in before you did him this "favor."
Many union wage contracts, especially service unions like UFCW and SEIU, are tied to the minimum wage, specifying a certain percentage above minimum. Raise the minimum and those union wages must rise.
In addition, most employees at that level know what the minimum is and, if they're making more than the minimum, want to keep pace. So raising the minimum means raising their wages above the new minimum, too.
Raising the minimum wage is not a magic bullet that will solve everything. It's not even a Band-aid. It's amputating a hand to cure a hangnail.
Conan the Grammarian at February 17, 2019 7:12 AM
Have you noticed that Warren, Harris, Booker and Cortez lie reflexively?
They don't even bother trying to make their lies plausible. And it's not just little things, all of them have been caught in major lies about their personal experiences and histories as well.
I think one reason this generation of Democratic politicians is so dishonest is that the press always defends them and abets their lies.
They know that they can say anything, and the press will report it as gospel - and attack anyone who questions the lie. And when the lie can no longer be defended, the press will deny that it ever happened.
mona at February 17, 2019 7:17 AM
These people are envious and impatient. If there are rich people why isn't everyone rich? But in the real world, there are people just starting out. Is an 18 yr old with an attitude and bad work habits worth big bucks? No. There are people who don't show up, who argue with the customers or steal from the store. Are they worth big bucks? No. There are elderly or disabled people who can barely make it to work and hold on to a job as a greeter. If you force employers to pay more you get stores closing and inflation, which steals the savings of the elderly.
The first federal min wage was proposed to price minorities out of the job market on the logic that if there was a min wage then employers would rather hire white people. While racist, at least they understood economics.
cc at February 17, 2019 7:57 AM
Conan Says:
"If you raise the minimum wage, you raise the cost of labor. That raises the cost of providing goods and services across the board, which drives up prices."
That is a very simplistic way of looking at a complex integrated economic issue.
The impact of the minimum wage on inflation is not really this straight forward.
During many eras when the minimum wage has been raised our inflation has been extremely low.
Similarly, during many eras when the minimum wage has remained stable, inflation has been high.
The idea that raising the minimum wage is directly correlated with inflation is as wrong headed as the idea that tax cuts for the rich result in increased wages for everyone else.
Incidentally, we don't often here talk that tax cuts for the wealthy will result in inflation and price increases... despite the fact that folks also argue that it will waise worker wages... something that for minimum wage discussions results in inflation for the very same speakers.
Artemis at February 17, 2019 8:46 AM
Conan's first post captures things nicely.
After that, is a period of readjustment to achieve a new equilibrium, similar to but higher than the old equilibrium. Then along comes the foolish who will demand a $25/hour minimum because people can't support a family on $15/hour.
And as Limbaugh sometimes argues, why not set the minimum wage at $100/hour?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 17, 2019 8:54 AM
The impact of the minimum wage on inflation is not really this straight forward.
It generally is that straight forward. There maybe exceptions, but for the most part, flooding a market with extra money that wasn't realized thru an increase in production or efficiency will result in increases in prices of goods and services because the market can bear that increase.
When my local grocer has to pay her staff a higher wage, the grocer's prices must go up. Another way to counter that by reducing their labor costs, either thru reduced hours for their employees, or by reducing the number of employees.
But there's only so much room for that. And so suddenly my standard of living has taken a hit. And not just at my green grocer, it will be in every transaction I make.
And at some point, I'll have to go to my boss and say "hey, I need a bump in wage since it isn't what it was". And s/he'll agree, since they're feeling the pinch as well.
Now apply that to people living in section 8 housing, and buying their food with EBT cards. Also the people who were making above minimum before you raised it and now are not? they'll want to get back to being above, again and soon.
So, why not raise the minimum wage to $100/hour?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 17, 2019 9:19 AM
> The impact of the minimum wage
> on inflation is not really
> this straight forward.
Straightforward is one word.
Where did you go to college? What kind of work do you do? How old are you?
Just curious.
Crid at February 17, 2019 10:02 AM
As is your point of view (so what's new?).
Yes, Artie, there are multiple variables that go into inflation. Many things can, and have, offset minimum wage increases in the past.
And some things could offset higher labor costs today.
Things that could have an effect include, but are not limited to, technology doing many unskilled jobs and, by extension, replacing unskilled workers. Just a few examples:
How again, is a higher minimum wage a win for unskilled labor, Artie?
Conan the Grammarian at February 17, 2019 10:10 AM
I may have my facts mixed up, but hasn't executive pay shot up disproportionately to lower-paid employees? Is this desirable, is there a way of bringing them closer together, and if so, do we want to?
NicoleK at February 17, 2019 10:18 AM
Here we go again.
That's a flawed study being cited.
The EPI study being cited by the Democratic presidential candidates used CEO compensation (pay, bonuses, options, etc.) at the largest 350 companies in the US and compared it to the hourly rate of the bottom 80% of all workers.
If you don't exclude smaller company executives and include all compensation for workers, the gap is not as catastrophic as the fear mongers would have you believe.
The EPI study being cited came up with a 274:1 ratio using flawed and manipulated data.
Temple University professor Steven Balsam found "that as you include larger numbers of chief executives, the pay ratio between them and typical workers becomes dramatically smaller."
There were 246,240 CEOs in the US in 2014. The EPI study used the highest-paid 350. That's less than 1% of the CEOs in this country being compared to all the workers.
If you use BLS data and compare average salaries, the pay ratio is closer to 4:1. And the job description of a CEO is quite different from that of the bottom 80% of workers, so you'd expect the CEO to get a higher salary.
"...the 'average American CEO' earns far less than the average CEO at the biggest 350 firms, and the ratio between the pay of the 'average American CEO' and the average American worker is far smaller than the figure being cited."
Conan the Grammarian at February 17, 2019 10:50 AM
Crid: Where did you go to college? What kind of work do you do? How old are you?
It isn't proper to attempt to demean someone personally.
Attack the arguments and assertations.
gcmortal at February 17, 2019 12:20 PM
gcmortal: It isn't proper to attempt to demean someone personally.
You haven't been here very long, have you? As someone who, like Crid, has been on this blog since it was created, I can tell you that asking Crid not to demean someone personally is essentially asking him never to speak again.
Patrick at February 17, 2019 12:33 PM
Are Artemis and Lenona the same person?
Just wondering ...
Jay R at February 17, 2019 12:34 PM
No. Not in the least.
And I don't know where Ppen and lovelysoul have disappeared to, but they are separate from me as well. (I miss Ppen...)
lenona at February 17, 2019 12:46 PM
> It isn't proper to attempt to
> demean someone personally.
First
—————
Says who, in this context? What makes you think being "proper" is a goal, either for me personally, or within the context of these comments?
Even as the blogging revolution withers and wheezes in internet seniority, I'm repelled by thinkers so conventional in their manner that they demand every communique be bleached and dried into the odorless, colorless, comprehensibly useless context of meaning in which they've presumably lived their own tawdry lives... Sexually, religiously, politically, financially and expressively.
The rest of us are not children. If you need to be flattered and reassured and kissed on the forehead before you can take a point, get lost.
Second
——————
From the earliest comments, Orion/Artemis has coarsely affected a timid, institutional understanding of human relationships, and has humorlessly denigrated those who identify the weaknesses of his (/her) wordy, vacuous arguments. This person is properly terrified of being seen as green and provincial.
T'ellwiddum.
Third
—————
> Are Artemis and Lenona
> the same person?
I'm quite certain that they're not. Lenona is warmly humble, knows the boundaries of her sturdy enthusiasm, and is sincerely curious about the world, often citing & sharing long, expository passages which she finds instructive and provocative.
Artemis is defensive, pretentious and unlearned, without so much as a twitching flicker of savvy.
Crid at February 17, 2019 1:06 PM
Artie might be the only commenter on this blog Amy has ever called an "asshole" or accused of "arguing dirty." And that's including the few she's banned.
Conan the Grammarian at February 17, 2019 2:37 PM
Here in LA, entry level jobs are filled by some guy from Oaxaca who has his own tools, works any hours and doesn’t complain. My kids were stunned to see teenagers managing DQs in Utah.
KateC at February 17, 2019 6:14 PM
So, you don't like Artemis.
Since you object to my use of the word "proper", I'll change my language.
It is chickenshit to try to shut someone down by querying age, work, educational level, (gender, sexual preference, religion, blood type, number of toes, etc etc.)
Stick to what's being said, and blast away.
gcmortal at February 17, 2019 7:48 PM
> Stick to what's being said,
> and blast away.
Nope, we can say what we want, until Amy decides we're getting in the way. (It's happened twice in fifteen years.) It's like free speech, except that it's more about her patient courtesy (and confidence) than about our rights to use her disk space.
In any case, and I shoulda mentioned this earlier, you've made a fundamental mistake in reading my questions: I sincerely want them answered.
Orion/Artemis, quite aside from the name change, has played identity games across the six years that he's/she's been visiting. He/she quibbles endlessly about the context by which he/she is judged. He'll/she'll claim expertise on any topic, but will resist every inquiry about his/her experience of the world... Including his/her gender.
Today's topic is no different. We admire Coney's enthusiasm for mopping up the mess.
Crid at February 17, 2019 8:22 PM
Free speech precisely, with the common consequence of pushback. Wouldn't have it any other way.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad your questions were not simply an effort to exclude.
gcmortal at February 17, 2019 8:44 PM
okay, I am a bit younger than Pocahontas, er, I mean Elizabeth Warren; but still, I don't remember a time EVER when minimum wage supported a family of three.
charles at February 18, 2019 6:02 AM
Gcmortal, This has been Crid's MO for years. He aint going to change. And he's still mad at me because I called him a troll years ago because of behavior like this.
So congrats. You probably just made the Crid shit list. He'll be questioning your education and sexual orientation for decades to come.
Ben at February 18, 2019 6:59 AM
Aw Bensy, it's more that you've never outgrown your weak early appearances.
Crid at February 18, 2019 7:02 AM
"That is a very simplistic way of looking at a complex integrated economic issue."
Boilerplate words from leftist economists when their doctrine is challenged: "You're too stupid to understand". They used the same words to dismiss the Laffer curve out of hand. Yet both basic math, and post-WWII experience, basically bears it out: We've seen any number of occasions, from JFK to Reagan to recently with Trump, where tax revenues increased when rates were cut. In fact, within limits, it appears that tax collections are essentially inversely proportional to rates. (In the broader view, tax collections in the U.S. are pretty much a fixed percentage of the GDP, regardless of what is done with tax rates.)
(For those who didn't see it the last time I stated it: When tax rates are zero, there is obviously no tax revenue. When tax rates are 100%, there is no revenue (or very little) because there is no economic activity to tax. At rates in between, obviously, tax revenues are considerably above zero. So something like the Laffer curve has to exist. Exactly where the sweet spot is, and what it looks like, isn't known precisely and it may change according to circumstances. But it's basically a curve with endpoints at 0% and 100%, and a maximum somewhere in between. There's nothing else it can be.)
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2019 10:38 AM
Aaaaandddd... The other issue with minimum wage increases is that most taxes aren't indexed to inflation. So as wages and prices go up, the tax burden increases. Progressive taxation makes this worse, as taxpayers get forced into higher income brackets even though they have seen no real increase in their buying power.
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2019 10:58 AM
Just my two cents, but the peak of the Laffer curve appears to be below 33% total. I.e. total taxation, not just federal or just income. People care how much they are losing not really on the rational used to take it.
For the US that would put the total federal tax rate under 20% since states usually take around 10%. Since the OASDI tax is 12.4% that puts your maximum effective income tax rate under 7.6%. The current minimum income tax bracket is currently 10%. But people have deductions, i.e. 0% taxed income. So that doesn't mean much.
Personally I bet the peak is around 15% total. So there is a long way for things to come down to hit max revenue.
Ben at February 18, 2019 12:13 PM
"Complex issue"? Bullshit.
You sell your labor to an employer. That employer doesn't owe you anything you have not earned. You are in competition with everyone else who can do that job.
Now. Print that out where you can see it all the time, because the basics are a mystery to some of you.
And some of you are so dense you think that you can legislate away, not only those basics, but the very unit of measurement used for human effort: the Hour of Work
It might be the dumbest thing ever on this blog, to try to tell people their theories about the work place trump the actual practice going on right now. In such cases, ye who do this, your pet ideas are trash, and it's obvious you've never maintained a payroll.
Radwaste at February 18, 2019 3:26 PM
Cousin Dave had a good point that I was going to point out because it is often missed. Most taxes are not indexed to anything (inflation or minimum wage) so as income goes up so does tax burden. I have heard minimum wage increases as "stealth" tax increases.
Last year I had a number of increase in costs...rent being a major one. I calculated that if my cost went up $200 my income had to go up $300 to cover because roughly 1/3 of my income was going straight to taxes. It looks like this year I'll cross the next level of state income taxes so my marginal rate will go up by 1%.
The Former Banker at February 18, 2019 8:07 PM
> your questions were not simply
> an effort to exclude.
Oh, I'll do that sometimes too, and simply indeed.
Crid at February 18, 2019 8:48 PM
Leave a comment