Raising the minimum wage is part of the Democrats platform

[erowe1]

Inflation is not about "all" prices. It is the overall trend.

It's the overall trend of all prices, not just some of them. But there can't be an overall trend of all prices unless there's an increase in the money supply. Therefore, if there's no increase in the money supply, then when some prices go up, while the overall trend of all prices does not go up, it follows that there must be some prices somewhere else that go down.

ETA: Note that the source you're citing says that inflation is "often" caused by an increase in the money supply. This is a standard mainstream economist line. I'm going with the free market ones I cited earlier who say that it's not merely often caused by an increase in the money supply, but that it always is.

 

[erowe1]

It's unfortunate when a good many jobs out there now are minimum wage jobs, even for people that have many skills. You can barely afford a one bedroom apartment working a minimum wage job 40 hours a week, and a lot of minimum wage jobs are not full time. The last time it was raised was in 2009, and that was only by 75 cents. I mean, I think prices are rising without the minimum wage rising, but many people right now are forced to work minimum wage jobs, so they aren't able to afford the things they need. I just don't see why it hasn't been at least rising with inflation so people can at least attempt to make a living off of it. I realize it isn't supposed to be the type of job a grown adult supporting a family is supposed to have long term, but these are bad economic times and some people have no other choice right now.

Why should the government force everyone to earn enough money to pay for a one bedroom apartment?

There are people who would like to be able to offer their labor at prices below that amount. Shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

 

[TheGrinch]

So I have a question because I sort of agree with both you guys and I am no where as knowledgeable.

Let's give my scenario. I am the Federal Reserve and I currently have 100 dollars in circulation. The minimum wage was just raised from 1 dollar to 2 dollars. How will it be possible to increase the pay of everyone in my country AND have an increase in prices WITHOUT prices dropping down somewhere AND WITHOUT printing more money?

The amount of dollars available greatly surpasses the amount spent on production costs, including labor. Thus, if a policy helps restrict competition, then why would I not be comfortable having to pay a little more for more skilled labor, while my competition suffers, and prices only tend to go higher as wages go higher and competition is reduced. Then you just have to price it where you still have demand.

Bill Gates is a good example. For one thing, a great portion of his net worth is his majority share in Microsoft. He might not have all that much cash on hand, any more than he needs. But through Microsoft he has all of the capital in the world, and what is good for Microsoft is for them to lobby for as many barriers of entry as possible, minimum wage raises being just one of those regulations, as they and Apple can set the prices and gain all of the market share. (BTW, this is a loose example of how it works. I'm not really up to date in how Microsoft has exploited it's monopoly, but they surely have, along with the rest of the privileged who set policy).

So you don't need more money printed necessarily, when all it takes to make more money is to circulate more of it as you increase your market share. It all ends up coming back to you in the end if you're one of the priveleged on the inside of the barriers.

(ETA: this is not to say that inflation still isn't beneficial to this process, it is yet another way they rob us of our earnings, but is certainly far from the only means).

 

[erowe1]

If minimum wage were abolished, then you'd have employers try to get away with paying people as little as possible.

That's what they're supposed to do.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm not saying the government should make sure everyone can afford a one bedroom apartment. I'm saying if you work, you should be able to make it on your own without government assistance.

I think you should be able to hire people for whatever wage you choose, but you should also be considerate and realize that people are trying to make a living. I just feel bad for people that are genuinely hard workers but just have bad luck and are struggling to make it.

 

[erowe1]

The amount of dollars available greatly surpasses the amount spent on production costs, including labor. Thus, if a policy helps restrict competition, then why would I not be comfortable having to pay a little more for more skilled labor, while my competition suffers, and prices only tend to go higher as wages go higher and competition is reduced. Then you just have to price it where you still have demand.

Bill Gates is a good example. For one thing, a great portion of his net worth is his majority share in Microsoft. He might not have all that much cash on hand, any more than he needs. But through Microsoft he has all of the capital in the world, and what is good for Microsoft is for them to lobby for as many barriers of entry as possible, minimum wage raises being just one of those regulations, as they and Apple can set the prices and gain all of the market share. (BTW, this is a loose example of how it works. I'm not really up to date in how Microsoft has exploited it's monopoly, but they surely have, along with the rest of the privileged who set policy).

So you don't need more money printed necessarily, when all it takes to make more money is to circulate more of it as you increase your market share. It all ends up coming back to you in the end if you're one of the priveleged on the inside of the barriers.

Again, you have explained how raising the minimum wage causes some prices to go up, which is not a disputed point. What you have not explained is how this causes an overall trend in the increase in prices across the board. Nor have you answered twomp's question.

 

[erowe1]

I'm not saying the government should make sure everyone can afford a one bedroom apartment. I'm saying if you work, you should be able to make it on your own without government assistance.

So a person who wants to offer their labor at a rate lower than what a person can live on without government assistance shouldn't be allowed to do that?

I have a developmentally disabled sister who lives with our mom and barely manages to keep a job working maybe 6 hours a week for minimum wage. She doesn't need to earn enough to live on by herself. But she'd love to be able to offer her labor at a lower rate, so that she could work more. The government won't let her. Explain how that is right.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Doesn't matter if it doesn't make economic sense. It wins votes and works. Case closed.

 

[TheGrinch]

Again, you have explained how raising the minimum wage causes some prices to go up, which is not a disputed point. What you have not explained is how this causes an overall trend in the increase in prices across the board. Nor have you answered twomp's question.

(ETA: this is not to say that inflation still isn't beneficial to this process, it is yet another way they rob us of our earnings, but is certainly far from the only means).

..

 

[twomp]

I appreciate the quick replies from both you guys, still a little confused but I look forward to reading more about this from both of you.

 

[TheGrinch]

I appreciate the quick replies from both you guys, still a little confused but I look forward to reading more about this from both of you.

Feel free to ask any more questions you have, but I've debated this way too much already, when I think both me and erowe are essentailly arguing similar things, but with minor differences about whether inflation is inevitable in an interventionlaist economy or if price hikes happen just as much by other reasons like MW, but either way we can all agree that minimum wage rises suck, inflation sucks, and the way they use them together with all of the other regulations really sucks!

 

[erowe1]

I appreciate the quick replies from both you guys, still a little confused but I look forward to reading more about this from both of you.

I don't know how much more there is I can say. Just read about inflation at mises.org, freeman online, fee, and places like that, to see where I'm coming from.

 

[erowe1]

Feel free to ask any more questions you have, but I've debated this way too much already, when I think both me and erowe are essentailly arguing similar things, but with minor differences about whether inflation is necessary in Keynesian economy, but either way we can all agree that minimum wage rises suck, inflation sucks, and the way they use them together really sucks!

I think that's the difference. I'm explicitly rejecting the Keynesian perspective.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

So a person who wants to offer their labor at a rate lower than what a person can live on without government assistance shouldn't be allowed to do that?

I have a developmentally disabled sister who lives with our mom and barely manages to keep a job working maybe 6 hours a week for minimum wage. She doesn't need to earn enough to live on by herself. But she'd love to be able to offer her labor at a lower rate, so that she could work more. The government won't let her. Explain how that is right.

It's not right.

I just find it odd that some people dislike government assistance so much but then again making it so people will actually be able to live working off their own money is apparently a bad thing too. It's like, lose lose if you are low skilled or fall down on hard times. How is that right?

 

[TheGrinch]

I think that's the difference. I'm explicitly rejecting the Keynesian perspective.

I am too. You keep reading my posts before I edit them, because that's not what I meant. I am also of course against the Keynesian perspective or I wouldn't be arguing against minimum wage increases and inflation.

We agree much more than you think here, you just keep getting us stuck on argumentative assumptions, instead of realizing that.... Perhaps I'm a bit guilty of that as well though, keeping on coming back for more

 

[TheGrinch]

It's not right.

I just find it odd that some people dislike government assistance so much but then again making it so people will actually be able to live working off their own money is apparently a bad thing too. It's like, lose lose if you are low skilled or fall down on hard times. How is that right?

If you are low-skilled, there isn't a government assistance in the world that's gonna help you get off of it, and into a better job.

On-the-job skills and credible experience are extremely important. Why do you think they ask for your resume or experience at virtually every job in the world? Because especially if they're paying you a higher wage, then they want a little assurance that they're not just training you so that you can cost them rather than make them more money, through things like ineffeciency, turnover, who knows, maybe theft if no one can vouch for you.

 

[erowe1]

It's not right.

I just find it odd that some people dislike government assistance so much but then again making it so people will actually be able to live working off their own money is apparently a bad thing too. It's like, lose lose if you are low skilled or fall down on hard times. How is that right?

That point goes both ways.

I would say that the existence of welfare undermines the argument that anyone would need the minimum wage to go up, since those who aren't making enough to live on can already get government assistance.

 

[erowe1]

Here's a helpful article at mises.org called, "Will An Oil Price Fall Push Inflation Down?", where the author answers, no. I couldn't find one that makes the same points about minimum wage. But the arguments parallel one another.
http://mises.org/daily/2331

 

[TheGrinch]

That point goes both ways.

I would say that the existence of welfare undermines the argument that anyone would need the minimum wage to go up, since those who aren't making enough to live on can already get government assistance.

We most certainly agree on that note. If the Dems want welfare, then they shouldn't demand minimum wages. As long as the safety net exists for those who earn below a certain wage, then it helps them even less to demand higher wages without earning it. Companies simply will not do that, taking on high-risk employees for higher wages unless there aren't any better choices to fill the position (which there will tend to be as wages rise).

If you give a business a choice between acceptable profits and having to pay essentially welfare to unqualified employees, I think you'll find that it simply won't be worth it to many small businesses.

The unfortunate thing is that the Republicans outside of us are all too quiet about it, treating it like a PR issue rather than an issue to be addressed.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

If you are low-skilled, there isn't a government assistance in the world that's gonna help you get off of it, and into a better job.

On-the-job skills and credible experience are extremely important. Why do you think they ask for your resume or experience at virtually every job in the world? Because especially if they're paying you a higher wage, then they want a little assurance that they're not just training you so that you can cost them rather than make them more money, through things like ineffeciency, turnover, who knows, maybe theft if no one can vouch for you.

But if you live paycheck to paycheck then you aren't going to have enough money to save to invest in any type of job training. It just seems like a vicious cycle. I don't believe everyone working minimum wage wants to stay there the rest of their lives but some of them have no choice.