• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

Someone raised a good point earlier ...
how come something like raising gas prices in order to encourage less driving is an accepted practice but raising the minimum wage is claimed to have no effect on employment?

I can only imagine that either people don't want to admit that labor is a good or service because we provide it, or they want to raise the minimum wage out of a misplaced belief that it will help poor people, and thus engage in Confirmation Bias.
 
Wal-Mart doesn't get to upend economic reality. If the cost of producing, shipping, storing, and then selling a good to you goes up, so too, must the price. Especially if the good is already sold in such a manner as to slice profits low so as to make a bundle on volume. Like, for example, the goods at Wal-Mart.

It says always!
 
If only Wal-mart raises their wages, yes its a net loss. However if the wage is raised across the nation it actually improves their position.

:shrug: that is simply mathematically incorrect. You cannot take profits, subject them to another round of taxation, and then use them to purchase goods, and end up with more profits than the amount with which you started.
 
It says always!

:shrug: and relative to its' competition, I suppose it always will be (or it will die, which would be fine, as if it does so then obviously superior alternatives have been made available). That does not mean that the cost of a carton of eggs at Wal-Mart today must be the cost of a carton of eggs at Wal-Mart next week.


OR, they will use other options to keep Low Prices, Always. For example, the last time we raised the minimum wage, Wal-Mart invested in those newfangled self-checkout machines which have since become increasingly ubiquitous.

Gosh, I wonder what happened to all the minimum wage tellers and baggers whose services were no longer required, but whose cost had just been increased? :thinking
 
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.

Well, as the recent CBO report on the ACA indicated, when one's income goes up a rational response in some cases is to work less so that you don't raise your income beyond the thresholds for government subsidies. Time is our most precious resource and people balance it with their leisure time. As income goes up, one may work less.

Also, although true, spending at Walmart probably has limited impact as Walmart is a privately owned company so the buying there would tend to increase income inequality, wouldn't it?
 
We already did a trillion dollar stimulus and no results vs the expense.

Further if raising the minimum wage is good then where do you see how much the minimum wage should be? If raising the minimum wage is good then should it not be raised to $100 an hour or more. Meaning the more the minimum wage is increased the more the economy grows. We are now at a growth rate on average at 2 percent, with a raise to $100 minimum wage the economy should burst with growth. Is this not your view?

"No results" is completely inaccurate. It eased the recession and we really needed three or four times more of it.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf

Not sure what this silly rant about raising minimum wage to $100 an hour is about. Is this really the best straw man you can come up with?

Raising the minimum wage to bring it up to similar historical levels is not some kind of radical action. The circumstances and economics of today suggest such a move would have moderately positive effects.
 
i started my post my admitting I don't know alot about economics. If you have such a fragile little ego that you need to be an ass despite that, then **** off

No what you wrote is the exact same mantra that every other left person that i know brings. Companies don't care about their employee's that is why they pay crap wages.
that isn't how it works and calling you out on it isn't being an ass.

Low wages exist due to low skill jobs. the lower the skill job the more people that are qualified to do it. which means there is a large supply of people that qualify for that job
that suppresses wages.

as your skill increases along with knowledge then you offer more you can produce more you become more efficient which means that your value goes up.
it is like this across any company. the lower you are the less pay you get.

what happens is when you increase the pay for a position the demand for skill and production go up. if you can't or don't have the skill then you are priced out of a job.

places like target, walmart etc ... sell to specific markets on top of that. walmart targets lower/lower middle income people. target goes after higher income people.
they still have to be competitive with other people.

most companies have a flat line of profit that they make. in order for a company to stay in business it has to make a profit. most profits are put back into the company while some is paid out to investors and others are given out in raises.

most profits are used to fund next years projects or they are used to pay for added expenses.

by mandating pay for low skill jobs you price those people out of jobs and new people coming in. in order to justify a 10 dollar salary that person has to produce more than 10 dollars an hour. if they don't then they cost you money. the other issue is there is only so much 1 person can produce.
 
My mistake, I may have been thinking of Costco. I would have sworn Walmart was pushing hard for federal minimum wage increases because it would increase sales.

Why Costco is Backing Obama's Minimum Wage Push - DailyFinance

there is no evidence of this. not that the price increase would wipe out any gains just like it did the last time they raised minimum wage.
when they did that i got a pay cut due to price increases.
 
:shrug: that is simply mathematically incorrect. You cannot take profits, subject them to another round of taxation, and then use them to purchase goods, and end up with more profits than the amount with which you started.

How does raising wages "subject them to another round of taxation"?

Low wage workers pay less net taxes on their income than would investors or executives would on what would have been more corporate profit. This would produce an end result in which the government collects less taxes, investors and executives take home slightly less pay, and the wage workers take home significantly more.
 
there is no evidence of this. not that the price increase would wipe out any gains just like it did the last time they raised minimum wage.
when they did that i got a pay cut due to price increases.

What?
 
I can only imagine that either people don't want to admit that labor is a good or service because we provide it, or they want to raise the minimum wage out of a misplaced belief that it will help poor people, and thus engage in Confirmation Bias.

LoL, Mike... Mike... you don't need a raise, its NOT going to help you Mike. Mike I'm doing this for your own good, minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is what's going to do you best. :lol:
 
There was a good book published way back in 1946: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. Everyone should read it...and y'all are in luck because you CAN read it free of charge here: Economics in One Lesson

Is has a section that deals with the minimum wage. Here is the conclusion of that section:

The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation — i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training. The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid. Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

So government policy should be directed, not to imposing more burdensome requirements on employers, but to following policies that encourage profits, that encourage employers to expand, to invest in newer and better machines to increase the productivity of workers — in brief, to encourage capital accumulation, instead of discouraging it—and to increase both employment and wage rates.

All of you supporters of minimum wage need not thank me for providing this resource. I do this in the interest of furthering your education and, hopefully, preventing you from supporting a bad governmental policy.
 
LoL, Mike... Mike... you don't need a raise, its NOT going to help you Mike. Mike I'm doing this for your own good, minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is what's going to do you best. :lol:

:shrug: sure, Mike can use a raise. Is it fair, or even good economic policy, to fire Linda so that Mike can have a raise? Is it good economic policy to put in a price floor so as to ensure that low-quality providers can never enter the market in the field of labor? Those enjoying the sky-high "lack of job-lock" rates among our urban poor might wonder.
 
There was a good book published way back in 1946: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. Everyone should read it...and y'all are in luck because you CAN read it free of charge here: Economics in One Lesson

Is has a section that deals with the minimum wage. Here is the conclusion of that section:



All of you supporters of minimum wage need not thank me for providing this resource. I do this in the interest of furthering your education and, hopefully, preventing you from supporting a bad governmental policy.

You do realize the world has changed greatly since then, right? It would be like suggesting the best way to increase horsepower in your truck would be to take better care of your horse's hooves. Not to mention we've already done all those things and much more.

Globalization has completely reshaped the world's economies with manufacturing moving overseas. That is the main reason the common worker today has little political or earning power as nobody needs them in the U.S. Being that we are becoming more service oriented domestically, the only way to boost service sector wages is through government setting the market.

Our economy works best when we have a strong middle class with spending power, that's not going to happen with low wages.
 
:shrug: sure, Mike can use a raise. Is it fair, or even good economic policy, to fire Linda so that Mike can have a raise? Is it good economic policy to put in a price floor so as to ensure that low-quality providers can never enter the market in the field of labor? Those enjoying the sky-high "lack of job-lock" rates among our urban poor might wonder.

Or cut into profits, but that would be stealing, right? Everyone has bent over backwards to make our economy work except for those with the most. They've decided they always need more no matter what and its breaking the country.
 
:lol: wait, Costco wants to use the power of government to subsidize its' position, and make life harder for its' competition?!?

Why - Say It Aint' So!!!


:lamo

They are a role model for competitors and a fine example of what would put the U.S. back on track to a winning economy. Their workers buy homes and spend additional money in the local economy strengthening it.

Wal-Mart's exploitation every where it goes is the perfect example of conservative economics at work. They create an efficient system where the impoverished workers and citizens of the town have just barely enough to afford the bare necessities while the lion's share of prosperity is funneled to a few upper level executives locally and the rest to the 1% far away.
 
You do realize the world has changed greatly since then, right? It would be like suggesting the best way to increase horsepower in your truck would be to take better care of your horse's hooves. Not to mention we've already done all those things and much more.

Globalization has completely reshaped the world's economies with manufacturing moving overseas. That is the main reason the common worker today has little political or earning power as nobody needs them in the U.S. Being that we are becoming more service oriented domestically, the only way to boost service sector wages is through government setting the market.

Our economy works best when we have a strong middle class with spending power, that's not going to happen with low wages.

The law of economics hasn't changed one bit since one semi-intelligent creature struck a bargain with another one. The rest of your post is nothing more than rationalized claptrap...with the exception of the part I highlighted in blue. That is simply wrong. The very worst thing a government can do is fix prices.
 
The law of economics hasn't changed one bit since one semi-intelligent creature struck a bargain with another one. The rest of your post is nothing more than rationalized claptrap...with the exception of the part I highlighted in blue. That is simply wrong. The very worst thing a government can do is fix prices.

You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. The world has changed greatly since WWII and so with it the circumstances that govern economics. You don't think globalization has anything to do with it? Are you kidding me?

Calling raising the minimum wage "price fixing" is pretty deceptive in this context and I would guess that you don't even know what it means.

The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes. If you would like to see 2/3rds of the country sit in poverty because of globalization and a desire by the policymakers to turn a blind eye then by all means support conservative economics.

Without government action to shape the market to be more friendly to the majority of Americans, they have one thing in their future, poverty. The America they can look forward to will largely be a minority with good paying high skilled jobs and everyone else as the poverty class. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, construction workers, cashiers, (average people), will never be middle class again.
 
Not that this makes it 100% infallible, but a friend of mine who is an econ major was explaining to me that increasing minimum wage essentially increases the velocity of money. Less money in bank accounts, more circulating.
 
The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes.

Can you explain why stores like Walmart and Target pay more than minimum wage, then?
 
You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. The world has changed greatly since WWII and so with it the circumstances that govern economics. You don't think globalization has anything to do with it? Are you kidding me?

Calling raising the minimum wage "price fixing" is pretty deceptive in this context and I would guess that you don't even know what it means.

The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes. If you would like to see 2/3rds of the country sit in poverty because of globalization and a desire by the policymakers to turn a blind eye then by all means support conservative economics.

Without government action to shape the market to be more friendly to the majority of Americans, they have one thing in their future, poverty. The America they can look forward to will largely be a minority with good paying high skilled jobs and everyone else as the poverty class. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, construction workers, cashiers, (average people), will never be middle class again.

Globalization hasn't changed the law of economics one bit.

price fix·ing also price-fix·ing (prīs′fĭk′sĭng)
n.
1. The setting of commodity prices artificially by a government.

price-fixing - definition of price-fixing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Definition of 'Price Fixing'

Establishing the price of a product or service, rather than allowing it to be determined naturally through free-market forces. Antitrust legislation makes it illegal for businesses to decide to fix their prices under specific circumstances. However, there is no legal protection against government price fixing. In an ill-fated attempt to end the Great Depression, for example, Franklin Roosevelt forced businesses to fix prices in the 1930s. However, this action may have actually prolonged the downturn.

Price Fixing Definition | Investopedia

(skipped the continued rationalized claptrap)
 
Can you explain why stores like Walmart and Target pay more than minimum wage, then?

Generally people get raises every year. Higher level positions pay slightly more, like from cart pusher to working the service desk. We're talking from 7.25 to 8, to 9, to 10 if you've been there for years and have moved up slightly two levels... These are not big numbers and can barely be called more.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom