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

[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.