• 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!

Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recession

Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

So.. According to you, their labor costs go up, they get busier, they hire more (at the now higher wage) and magically reduce prices. :roll:

They're not going to reduce prices, that would reduce short term profits, something bonus riddled CEO's fear more than anything. Yes, increases to minimum wage increases the cost of living, but the cost of living increase is BEHIND the minimum wage increase.

Why? Competition. It's one of those "free market" principles bandied about all the time by "conservatives".
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

It occurs to me that if employers can pass along the cost of higher wages, then there is no need for a loss of jobs.

Alternatively, if they can decrease the number of workers, then there is no need for inflation to result from higher wages.

I don't understand why some people will argue that a higher min wage would cause both, or why when you defeat their argument about one of those options, they jump over to the other.

And what they totally ignore are all the other factors such as the cost savings to business due to an increase in economy of scale that ocures when demand increases. "Unintended consequences" are not always unintended, nor are they always bad.

Because being a dishonest debater is better than being wrong, and because admitting wrong undermines the basis for their core political beliefs.


But even Alan Greenspan was able to admit his economic ideas were wrong, and devastating to the american people.


19 March: Alan Greenspan finally admits he was wrong | Daily Maverick
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Of course it is. I wasn't trying to write a long diatribe on the subject. However, basically and simply, no matter what we raise min wage to, in x number of years those making minimum wage will be back saying they can't afford to raise a family on that new dollar amount.

The minimum wage ISN'T about helping minimum wage workers raise a family. I don't care about their ability to raise their family.
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

For some, temporarily anyway. For others (a million according to this study) not so much.

You are making a basis on a study that provides no actual proof to support it's claim. I'd look into that before putting all of your eggs into that basket. Just saying.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

The Minimum Wage and the Great Recession: Evidence of Effects on the Employment and Income Trajectories of Low-Skilled Workers | Heartland Institute


It's a link to a link. The entire study is linked on this site. What you'll gather after going through it is that their study is based on the premise of higher labor cost = lower employment. In other words, the entire study is completely flawed. What you'll also notice is that they provide not one tiny shred of evidence to support that premise.

Why? Because it's completely illogical. Employers employ ONLY because they have too much work to get done for just themselves. At that point, it's either deny business, of hire. Period. Cost of hiring never even enters into the equation, but ultimately, it's the ONLY way to grow the business. Otherwise, there would be NOTHING but sole ownership, employee count of one businesses out there. It doesn't matter if the minimum wage is .01 cents per hour, or 20 dollars per hour, employees only hire the absolute minimum staff needed to get the work done. The only thing that changed in the recession is that businesses went OUT of business due to a lack of demand, not overpriced employees, which created a surplus of laborers looking for work. Which, of course, meant that employers could work their existing employees harder, because there WERE no better jobs for them to leave to.

But hey, don't take my word for it, lol. Go find another "study".

You make some good points but ignore the fact that employers can also alter their business model in order to use fewer employees or to use employees that require less skill. Direct sales via the internet and automation are two ways of accomplishing more but using less or lower skilled labor to do so. Moving one's production facility to a lower taxed/regulated area (state or country) is another way to reduce labor costs. More companies, like Amazon, will switch to the direct (internet) sales method since retail store space and cashiers are no longer required overhead to run a retail business; this allows a lower retail markup to yield a higher retail profit by using less real estate and less labor in the business model.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

i'm sure we'll still have people arguing that the CBO and this study are just wrong

This article does not say anything about the CBO. Please quote the CBO saying that the MW increase in 2007 cost jobs.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

You make some good points but ignore the fact that employers can also alter their business model in order to use fewer employees or to use employees that require less skill. Direct sales via the internet and automation are two ways of accomplishing more but using less or lower skilled labor to do so. Moving one's production facility to a lower taxed/regulated area (state or country) is another way to reduce labor costs. More companies, like Amazon, will switch to the direct (internet) sales method since retail store space and cashiers are no longer required overhead to run a retail business; this allows a lower retail markup to yield a higher retail profit by using less real estate and less labor in the business model.


Increases or decreases to the minimum wage have little, if not no, actual affect on automation. Even at 1 dollar per hour, a self check out lane costs less over a fixed period of time, than a manned check out. Moving away from brick and mortar was and is going to happen, no matter what we do to the minimum wage. Off shoring to get cheap Chinese labor is the ONLY one which minimum wage has an affect, and the minimum wage ultimately has less affect that our OTHER regs, like environmental, OSHA, etc.


All of the things you have listed ARE, or WILL happen, even if we abolish the minimum wage.

At some point, we have to accept this, and move past this argument that is taking place in this thread. At some point, the reality of dramatically reduced employment HAS to hit home, and we HAVE to accept that there are measures that MUST be taken to insure against complete collapse. Minimum wage is ONE of those measures. Combined with a reduced work week, it will allow this country to keep people EARNING their living.

Which is what this is all about, yes?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

This article does not say anything about the CBO. Please quote the CBO saying that the MW increase in 2007 cost jobs.

He hasn't even read this so called "study" yet, lol. He's basing his entire argument off of an OPINION piece ABOUT the study.:doh
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

He hasn't even read this so called "study" yet, lol. He's basing his entire argument off of an OPINION piece ABOUT the study.:doh

Isn't opinion what you've been offering in rebuttal?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

He hasn't even read this so called "study" yet, lol. He's basing his entire argument off of an OPINION piece ABOUT the study.:doh

Even worse - he seems to be referring to a CBO study that doesn't even exist.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Isn't opinion what you've been offering in rebuttal?

No. The times of greatest largess in this country were also the times of the highest minimum wage. Before you accuse me of the causation = correlation fallacy, I am AWARE that there were other factors involved...but WITHOUT the higher minimum wages during those time periods, the largess would NOT have been distributed the same, resulting in LESS for all, even the wealthy. Now, for the PROOF of that? Well, I have none, since it DIDN'T happen. Can't prove something that didn't happen. But it IS logical. The reverse argument is not. Simple enough.


How about you? Are YOU an employer? Would YOU employ MORE people simply because they cost less to do so? Maybe for a SMALL business, sure. It would mean less work for the owner, which MIGHT be worth it to said owner if the difference in cost were great enough....but ultimately, probably not. Even at 4 bucks per hour, at 30 hours per week, that employee still costs more than the typical small business owner is willing to give up just so he/she doesn't have to work as hard.

No, you only hire more people to fill more demand, otherwise, no MATTER the cost of employees wages, you take a hit to your bottom line.


Is that logical, or not?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No. The times of greatest largess in this country were also the times of the highest minimum wage. Before you accuse me of the causation = correlation fallacy, I am AWARE that there were other factors involved...but WITHOUT the higher minimum wages during those time periods, the largess would NOT have been distributed the same, resulting in LESS for all, even the wealthy. Now, for the PROOF of that? Well, I have none, since it DIDN'T happen. Can't prove something that didn't happen. But it IS logical. The reverse argument is not. Simple enough.


How about you? Are YOU an employer? Would YOU employ MORE people simply because they cost less to do so? Maybe for a SMALL business, sure. It would mean less work for the owner, which MIGHT be worth it to said owner if the difference in cost were great enough....but ultimately, probably not. Even at 4 bucks per hour, at 30 hours per week, that employee still costs more than the typical small business owner is willing to give up just so he/she doesn't have to work as hard.

No, you only hire more people to fill more demand, otherwise, no MATTER the cost of employees wages, you take a hit to your bottom line.


Is that logical, or not?

Interesting opinion. Do YOU base it on EXPERINCE, or just LOGIC based on an IDEOLOGICAL perception?

While I can claim anything and you will either accept it, or not, I can claim that YES, I am an EMPLOYER. I have employed HUNDREDS of people at a time. Compensation is a complex calculation based on cost of finished goods and market considerations. The more complex the product/service being provided, the more investment required to maintain viability in the market place.

It seems YOU have this perception that owners/bosses are just lazy greedy people looking to pay the least while sitting on their butts. Clearly, this admission, if I have it right, diminishes any real consideration of what in the end is just YOUR OPINION.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Increases or decreases to the minimum wage have little, if not no, actual affect on automation. Even at 1 dollar per hour, a self check out lane costs less over a fixed period of time, than a manned check out. Moving away from brick and mortar was and is going to happen, no matter what we do to the minimum wage. Off shoring to get cheap Chinese labor is the ONLY one which minimum wage has an affect, and the minimum wage ultimately has less affect that our OTHER regs, like environmental, OSHA, etc.


All of the things you have listed ARE, or WILL happen, even if we abolish the minimum wage.

At some point, we have to accept this, and move past this argument that is taking place in this thread. At some point, the reality of dramatically reduced employment HAS to hit home, and we HAVE to accept that there are measures that MUST be taken to insure against complete collapse. Minimum wage is ONE of those measures. Combined with a reduced work week, it will allow this country to keep people EARNING their living.

Which is what this is all about, yes?

Paying people more to work less is not the answer.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

ocean515;1064088706]Interesting opinion. Do YOU base it on EXPERINCE, or just LOGIC based on an IDEOLOGICAL perception?
Yes, I am an employer, though not self employed. I work for a company that employs just under 100,000 people, and I directly have control over the employment of 4 clubs, which employ over 100 people each. I am not the sole voice on their payroll, but I have a lot of say. Which is why my logic is based the way it is...EXPERIENCE.
While I can claim anything and you will either accept it, or not, I can claim that YES, I am an EMPLOYER. I have employed HUNDREDS of people at a time. Compensation is a complex calculation based on cost of finished goods and market considerations. The more complex the product/service being provided, the more investment required to maintain viability in the market place.
I believe your claim. To not do so does not progress the discussion. And yes, I am aware that compensation is a complex calculation...but we are talking about the decision to hire more, or not hire more. We are, for the purpose of this argument, assuming that compensation is a fixed variable, via the minimum wage, whatever it may be set at.

It seems YOU have this perception that owners/bosses are just lazy greedy people looking to pay the least while sitting on their butts. Clearly, this admission, if I have it right, diminishes any real consideration of what in the end is just YOUR OPINION.
On the contrary, I believe that SOME bosses are lazy, but NOT for small businesses, or the self employed. They, in my opinion, or the THE hardest working, over the most hours, in this country, with NO EXCEPTIONS. Self employment is the hardest thing you can do, IMO. I have been self employed, and I know several people who are self employed. Again, that's why I make the conclusions that I do. Read over the the post that you responded to...it was not diatribe against the self employed, or the small business owner, or even over bosses in general. In fact, quite the opposite. I believe that these people are hard working, which is why they WON'T hire more people just because the cost to do so is reduced, by whatever margin. They would prefer to just continue as they are, and do the work themselves, in order to not lose that bit of bottom line/pay. The only reason they would hire more is to fulfill more demand, IE, their business has increased, which has caused there to be more work than they can physically do now, which means they hire someone else to help.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Paying people more to work less is not the answer.

Then what, in the context of this new argument, is?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Paying people more to work less is not the answer.

Why not? If you can get more productivity out of people by working them less - isn't that what life is all about? I'd rather pay someone $50,000 to do 50 units of work in 30 hours than pay someone $50,000 to do 50 units in 40 hours.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Why not? If you can get more productivity out of people by working them less - isn't that what life is all about? I'd rather pay someone $50,000 to do 50 units of work in 30 hours than pay someone $50,000 to do 50 units in 40 hours.

Congratulations!

You just increased your labor cost by 25%.

Not an intelligent way to run any business.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Maybe we should do away with minimum wage I'm sure that will create jobs.

It would not be pretty, but it very well might create jobs. What we would see is wage rate determination by the cross of Labor Supply and Demand.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Congratulations!

You just increased your labor cost by 25%.

Not an intelligent way to run any business.

Nor is ensuring your would be customers are too poor to afford your stuff, due to employing robots.


Fact - robots don't buy stuff.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Paying people more to work less is not the answer.
I'm assuming you've worked minimum wage before? (I don't mean to sound aggressive, quite a fan of your posts in general.) In some places, the cost of living even in a very modest apartment exceeds the salary of working a full-time minimum wage job. Some have to work a full-time job along with a part-time job, resulting in very little time to devote towards education (which would allow for social mobility and the ceasing of having to work two jobs). Having an abapical minimum wage results in having to work countless hours in unstimulating, monotonous, vapid, uninspiring atmospheres that are nothing less than a prison for the individual mind.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Congratulations!

You just increased your labor cost by 25%.

Not an intelligent way to run any business.

Actually, labor costs remain steady at $1000/unit
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Congratulations!

You just increased your labor cost by 25%.

Not an intelligent way to run any business.

Did I though? Productivity was up, meaning I can cut elsewhere. I might need 1 less employee. Not only that, but the employees I have are now happier and healthier because they have more time to themselves and their families.

To me, the salaried guy who is in the office from 7am-7pm is the dumbass of the office. First of all, he's fooling no one. There is no way he's being productive much of that time. Second of all, he must be a terrible person - go ****ing home.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Actually, labor costs remain steady at $1000/unit

Unit cost is the same, but total production time reduced from 40 to 30 hours, increasing total cost by 25%.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Did I though? Productivity was up, meaning I can cut elsewhere. I might need 1 less employee. Not only that, but the employees I have are now happier and healthier because they have more time to themselves and their families.

To me, the salaried guy who is in the office from 7am-7pm is the dumbass of the office. First of all, he's fooling no one. There is no way he's being productive much of that time. Second of all, he must be a terrible person - go ****ing home.

Childish logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom