• 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

Unit cost is the same, but total production time reduced from 40 to 30 hours, increasing total cost by 25%.

Labor costs, both before and after, are $50,000

Last time I checked, $50K is the same as $50K
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Labor costs, both before and after, are $50,000

Last time I checked, $50K is the same as $50K

Reduced hours, same output = increased cost.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Childish logic.

Childish logic? You don't even understand units of productivity and you're lecturing on business. Let me write out easier for you:

30 hours - 50 units of productivity - $50k
40 hours - 50 units of productivity - $50k

If you can't see which one of these is better, you shouldn't be running a business.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Reduced hours, same output = increased cost.

No, that's less cost! Are you kidding me that you think less hours with same output is increased cost?
 
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.

But you're saying that based on no evidence at all. The real minimum wage has been essentially flat for 60 years. But you're right - if the minimum wage is raised, then stays flat for a decade and over time inflation erases all the gains, then people living on what is now 2/3 of the purchasing power of a decade ago will probably complain that it's hard to make ends meet.

Bottom line is a raise improves living standards. Works for people on minimum wage same as it does for you.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No, that's less cost! Are you kidding me that you think less hours with same output is increased cost?

It is to the business.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Um, that increase in the minimum wage came during the Bush administration. So you think Bush is a progressive? :mrgreen:

The last time it changed was 2009. The 2007 law did it incrementally.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

It is to the business.

You're dismissing the factor of time. That's a variable. More productivity and output in less time is money.

Not to mention, you're not even getting into happier employees = less turnover.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

But you're saying that based on no evidence at all. The real minimum wage has been essentially flat for 60 years. But you're right - if the minimum wage is raised, then stays flat for a decade and over time inflation erases all the gains, then people living on what is now 2/3 of the purchasing power of a decade ago will probably complain that it's hard to make ends meet.

Bottom line is a raise improves living standards. Works for people on minimum wage same as it does for you.

To your point, that is one of the problems with the minimum wage debate. If we were really keeping up with inflation then minimum wage today would be somewhere in the $18 to $22 range (perhaps higher.) But since we do not, we have a real issue with what increases economically mean in the manner we go about them. Usually causing direct impact to labor supply & demand conditions. We cover this all the time with potential job losses when you increase minimum wage rates with no real correlation to existing economic conditions. Another way if saying the increases we go with are for political benefit, not economic sense.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

It is to the business.

Here's a look at productivity vs hours:

Crunch Mode: programming to the extreme - The Relationship Between Hours Worked and Productivity
60 x P60 < 40 x P40,
where P60 is the average productivity of employees working 60 hour weeks, and P40 is the average productivity of employees working 40 hour weeks. This effectively means that productivity during 60 hour weeks would be less than two-thirds that of what it was when 40 hour weeks were worked.

I don't actually have a problem with the 40-hour workweek, but rather am pointing out what appears to be a massive oversight currently in industry.

Not to mention, the 40-hour workweek is a joke in this country. If you only work 40 hours, you're considered lazy - which of course is idiotic.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No, that's less cost! Are you kidding me that you think less hours with same output is increased cost?

Actually, you're both wrong

Cost is measured by how much you spend on it. In both cases, the labor expenses were $50K

Ergo, costs are the same.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Actually, you're both wrong

Cost is measured by how much you spend on it. In both cases, the labor expenses were $50K

Ergo, costs are the same.

Agreed, but there are other types of costs - like opportunity cost. And in this opportunity cost is reduced because you've just freed up 10 hours of time that you can produce more.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Agreed, but there are other types of costs - like opportunity cost. And in this opportunity cost is reduced because you've just freed up 10 hours of time that you can produce more.

That may be true or may not be true but the fact remains that, as stated, costs remained the same.

Besides, "opportunity costs" is a figure of speech and not an actual deductible expense.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

If you think about it, it would actually create jobs. There is really no question about that.

Not really

at below current min wages the people earning that money have very little to spend. If the wages were lowered even more they would have only money to buy food, and perhaps rent a room and share it with other people. They would not have money to spend on other items, they don't spend, they don't create demand for goods and services which would be filled by new jobs
 
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.

Of course you would but that is still only one job at $50K to do 50 units of work.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Um, that increase in the minimum wage came during the Bush administration. So you think Bush is a progressive? :mrgreen:

In some ways absolutely.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

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.

When I worked for MW (it was $1.60/hour and soon went to $2.00/hour) I shared an apartment becuase, as you said, it was not enough income to meet expenses living alone. MW was then, and still is now, not offered except to entry level workers (under 3% of the workforce) and anyone could exceed that pay by proving themselves to be worth more. The idea that one full-time worker at MW can fully support themselves, much less support a familiy, has never been the case; an entry level McJob was never intended to be a career.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

If you think about it, it would actually create jobs. There is really no question about that.

It probably would, because in developed countries those making less than subsistence have their living standards raised to some level of subsistence through various government programs. So effectively, minimum wage jobs now, and even more so if it was lowered, involve the government paying part of that employer's wages. It's a direct subsidy of low wage businesses. Maybe we (taxpayers) SHOULD subsidize low wage businesses, but that's a policy question and is the alternative to a "livable" minimum wage.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

...Maybe we (taxpayers) SHOULD subsidize low wage businesses, but that's a policy question and is the alternative to a "livable" minimum wage.

I can't think of a single reason that we should have that policy. I'd much prefer to eliminate all forms of means tested welfare, and then use that money to either provide more government services for everyone, or to simply reduce taxation.

I get accused of being a liberal frequently, but I'm really much more of a libertarian - if something has to be taxpayer subsidized (like McDonalds), then we probably don't really need it. I think that a higher minimum wage would produce a much better economy, than any sort of means tested individual welfare or subsidies to low paying employers.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Not really

at below current min wages the people earning that money have very little to spend. If the wages were lowered even more they would have only money to buy food, and perhaps rent a room and share it with other people. They would not have money to spend on other items, they don't spend, they don't create demand for goods and services which would be filled by new jobs
Now that I think about it, reducing the minimum would not likely add jobs at all. The minimum wage in Ohio is $7.25. The local McDonalds is hiring at a starting wage of $8.50. The market has already accomplished what the liberal politicians dream about. But either way, I don't believe that the purchasing power of those earning minimum impact the overall economy in any significant way.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Now that I think about it, reducing the minimum would not likely add jobs at all. The minimum wage in Ohio is $7.25. The local McDonalds is hiring at a starting wage of $8.50. The market has already accomplished what the liberal politicians dream about. But either way, I don't believe that the purchasing power of those earning minimum impact the overall economy in any significant way.

"MW laws are destroying jobs"

"Besides, almost everyone makes more than MW anyway so it won't make a difference"


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

When I worked for MW (it was $1.60/hour and soon went to $2.00/hour) I shared an apartment becuase, as you said, it was not enough income to meet expenses living alone. MW was then, and still is now, not offered except to entry level workers (under 3% of the workforce) and anyone could exceed that pay by proving themselves to be worth more. The idea that one full-time worker at MW can fully support themselves, much less support a familiy, has never been the case; an entry level McJob was never intended to be a career.
Exactly. My first job paid a minimum wage of $2.65. I was 16, lived at home, and earned more than enough to buy a car, drive around town and hang out with my friends. Could I raise a family on that income? Of course not. And I am not sure why anyone would think that I should. People tend to get life backwards sometimes. You get a job, develop a skill, earn a decent wage, put some money aside THEN think about raising a family.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Exactly. My first job paid a minimum wage of $2.65. I was 16, lived at home, and earned more than enough to buy a car, drive around town and hang out with my friends. Could I raise a family on that income? Of course not. And I am not sure why anyone would think that I should. People tend to get life backwards sometimes. You get a job, develop a skill, earn a decent wage, put some money aside THEN think about raising a family.

That makes sense unless you want to have access to "safety net" help. In that case you basically need a dependent (or two or three) to qualify. Working hard, even for a decent employer, may not get you as high of an initial standard of living as having a child and part-time McJob does. For the long term, your plan is by far the best but, if you simply want to get out on your own ASAP perhaps not.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Now that I think about it, reducing the minimum would not likely add jobs at all. The minimum wage in Ohio is $7.25. The local McDonalds is hiring at a starting wage of $8.50. The market has already accomplished what the liberal politicians dream about. But either way, I don't believe that the purchasing power of those earning minimum impact the overall economy in any significant way.

It would add jobs... businesses would be more likely to expand, and new business models would become possible. Regardless, like you said, companies pay an employee what they are worth on the market, the Mcdonalds in your area pay 8.50, rather than the minimum because there is more demand for better workers. Reducing minimum wages would also decrease prices of good because labor for the goods would decrease, for companies that uses minimum wage labor.
 
Back
Top Bottom