• 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

If they need help that they don't have, as in, there is work that needs done that ISN'T currently being done due to a lack of help, then they are losing business, or soon to go OUT of business. What you are asking is, Do I think there are employers out there who would like to not have to work as hard, but aren't willing to part with the extra cash they make to make it happen?


Imagep, you are an employer. Wouldn't you just love it if you could pay a guy to manage your store, so you could retire...right now? But you don't do so because, that would likely mean 40K a year or more LESS in your pocket. Yes?


And the answer is yes, absolutely, but that answer remains yes even if the minimum wage were set much much lower.

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

How will it come out of the pocket of the employee?


And if all additional costs to operate are passed on to the consumer, than how on earth did anyone ever believe that competition in the market keeps prices at the lowest possible level?


You guys need to keep your theories strait.

Jesus dude.

How about less hours worked, and less new hires? That or higher prices are the options.
And if an employer does NOT do that, they are less competitive and eventually may lose out to competitors because of higher operating costs.
The left does this for votes, and if it punishes capitalists at the same time, so be it.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

....were that the case, then it would already have happened. You replace labor with automation as labor becomes more expensive than automation. I'm not sure how accelerating that process with artificial price floors on labor is a net benefit.

A machine will pay for itself in time and considering that it will produce more than many workers combined there is no reason to think keep wages low holds of automation for long.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

....were that the case, then it would already have happened. You replace labor with automation as labor becomes more expensive than automation. I'm not sure how accelerating that process with artificial price floors on labor is a net benefit.

OK. So, then, we should all resign ourselves to a minimum wage of 2 dollars an hour, in the desperate and VAIN hope that we won't be replaced by machines, because machines aren't subject to OSHA, don't need sick days, insurance, unemployment, etc?


No matter WHAT our wage floor is set at, machines are the way of the future...AUTOMATION is the way fo the future. Which would be fine by me, honestly, with the exception of ONE tiny little problem. Machines don't buy stuff.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Jesus dude.

How about less hours worked, and less new hires? That or higher prices are the options.
And if an employer does NOT do that, they are less competitive and eventually may lose out to competitors because of higher operating costs.
The left does this for votes, and if it punishes capitalists at the same time, so be it.

Less hours worked? So you think that, due to an increase in minimum wage, people are going to suddenly consume less?


I don't follow how you have logically come to this strange conclusion. Please explain.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No matter WHAT our wage floor is set at, machines are the way of the future...AUTOMATION is the way fo the future. Which would be fine by me, honestly, with the exception of ONE tiny little problem. Machines don't buy stuff.

I don't believe a completely automated world will happen. Employers might act like complete dumbasses from time to time, but they have to be aware of the fact that people actually have to buy what they produce.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

And econ class taught by who? Mises?


The most celebrated economist of the 90's all but denounced that theory. Look it up.

Is this your first day? Mises died in 79, lets see what he has to say...
Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Minimum wage - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Effects of the minimum wage[edit]

A minimum wage law is compulsory unemployment. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. The minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.[2]
A minimum wage leads to a reduction in the demand for labor and an increase in the supply of labor in the relevant market — usually, the market for low-skill workers. It removes the ability of some workers to compete by accepting lower wages and shuts them out of the labor force. As a result, it reduces job opportunities for these workers.
But there are additional, hidden costs of these interventions, which are more difficult to detect but perhaps more insidious. For example, one effect of a minimum wage is to reduce the availability of on-the-job training, since more resources are required simply to hire and retain a workforce. And further interventions in the labor market (for example, safety regulations and payroll taxes) make it still more costly to employ labor. These burdens together reduce a firm's willingness to hire laborers and — in the long run — must reduce the number of opportunities for those laborers to acquire valuable job skills. Far from increasing opportunities for the working poor, a minimum wage actually restricts their mobility.
Firms faced with minimum wage laws often substitute skilled for unskilled labor. A report from the Show-Me Institute offers an illustrative example: Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage of $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the "official data" this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed.

Minimum wage is especially harmful for minorities. According to a study of two labor economists, Professors William Even (Miami University of Ohio) and David Macpherson (Trinity University), each 10 percent increase in a federal or state minimum wage decreased employment of white males by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent. But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent. The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduced hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and by 6.6 percent for black males. The consequences of the minimum wage for the last subgroup were even more harmful than the consequences of the recession.[4]
Although outright racism has often been blamed as the sole cause of heavy minority teenage unemployment, it is clearly not the only factor. In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, young blacks had a lower unemployment rate than did whites of the same age group. But after the minimum wage increased significantly, especially in 1961, the black youth unemployment rate has increased to the extent that in 1980s it was a multiple of the white youth unemployment rate.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

That's possible.

It could also result in a higher rate of demand, increases in business sales, expansion of business, increased profitability, more jobs, more production, and more wealth production.

We have had enough history of increases in minimum wage that historic evidence exists to prove which set of possibilities is the most likely to happen. The past is the best predictor of the future.

Its possible? This is widely studied and the results are clear-all thats left is spin. We know that for numerous reasons this ends up harming both the consumer and the employee. Businesses will adapt by taking finite resources and reallocating them.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Jesus dude.

How about less hours worked, and less new hires?

So scaling back a profitable business typically results in higher profits? Couldn't that be done regardless of how much the min wage is? Hell, why not just fire everyone, that should really increase profits.

That or higher prices are the options.

If all a business had to do to increase profits was to jack up it's price, a paper clip would cost a billion dollars today, because businesses would have already done that.

And if an employer does NOT do that, they are less competitive and eventually may lose out to competitors because of higher operating costs.
The left does this for votes, and if it punishes capitalists at the same time, so be it.

No, their operating costs would be just the same compared to it's competitors. And if the competitors all jacked up their prices, then the one who didn't would capture a huge portion of market share, and it's profits would skyrocket. If the competitors all alternatively cut back on the quality of the product and customer care (but firing workers), then those competitors who did that would have a less satisfied customer base, and would lose business to those who didn't.

You have to look at the unintended consequences. They aren't all bad, nor are they all really unintentional. The mistake you are making is that you are taking a formula, and only looking at what would happen if one variable changed. All the variables in economics are dependent and codependent on each other, thus if one variable changes, they all change. that change is not always bad.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Its possible? This is widely studied and the results are clear-all thats left is spin. We know that for numerous reasons this ends up harming both the consumer and the employee. Businesses will adapt by taking finite resources and reallocating them.

When all you do is to pick and chose which evidence you believe in, so that it matches your ideology, then things always appear to be clear cut.

However, when one is open to finding the truth, regardless of ideology or rhetoric, nothing is "clear cut". From the preponderance of evidence offered in the studies that I have read, if anything, it's just the opposite.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Less hours worked? So you think that, due to an increase in minimum wage, people are going to suddenly consume less?


I don't follow how you have logically come to this strange conclusion. Please explain.

If an employers labor expenses are raised through legislation, the employer has the options of reducing the number of hours worked by each employee, or of laying off an employee. This would lead to less service and more work for the remaining employees, OR the employer could raise prices to pass on the costs, making them less competitive which also hurts them long run.

In the end the employee, employer, and consumer are harmed by govt intervention into the employee-employer contract. This is basic econ, bro. Did you get any college?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

It's not clear cut at all. From the preponderance of evidence offered in the studies that I have read, if anything, it's just the opposite.

So despite the basic laws of economics, increasing operating costs magically benefits everyone?

Citations, please-and not from left wing blogs.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

If an employers labor expenses are raised through legislation, the employer has the options of reducing the number of hours worked by each employee, or of laying off an employee. This would lead to less service and more work for the remaining employees, OR the employer could raise prices to pass on the costs, making them less competitive which also hurts them long run.

In the end the employee, employer, and consumer are harmed by govt intervention into the employee-employer contract. This is basic econ, bro. Did you get any college?

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

I don't believe a completely automated world will happen. Employers might act like complete dumbasses from time to time, but they have to be aware of the fact that people actually have to buy what they produce.


Tell that to all of the self professed employers right here who want to pay the people they expect to buy their crap LESS.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Its possible? This is widely studied and the results are clear-all thats left is spin. We know that for numerous reasons this ends up harming both the consumer and the employee. Businesses will adapt by taking finite resources and reallocating them.

The results ARE clear, lol. And you're wrong. History proves you such, if you would but check it out with an open mind.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

So scaling back a profitable business typically results in higher profits? Couldn't that be done regardless of how much the min wage is? Hell, why not just fire everyone, that should really increase profits.



If all a business had to do to increase profits was to jack up it's price, a paper clip would cost a billion dollars today, because businesses would have already done that.



No, their operating costs would be just the same compared to it's competitors. And if the competitors all jacked up their prices, then the one who didn't would capture a huge portion of market share, and it's profits would skyrocket. If the competitors all alternatively cut back on the quality of the product and customer care (but firing workers), then those competitors who did that would have a less satisfied customer base, and would lose business to those who didn't.

You have to look at the unintended consequences. They aren't all bad, nor are they all really unintentional. The mistake you are making is that you are taking a formula, and only looking at what would happen if one variable changed. All the variables in economics are dependent and codependent on each other, thus if one variable changes, they all change. that change is not always bad.

He's a conservative, root word being the antithesis of change.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

So scaling back a profitable business typically results in higher profits? Couldn't that be done regardless of how much the min wage is? Hell, why not just fire everyone, that should really increase profits.
Because then a business could not operate. If it could, they wouldn't have been hired. That is actually the balance businesses have t o find-and its exceedingly difficult.


If all a business had to do to increase profits was to jack up it's price, a paper clip would cost a billion dollars today, because businesses would have already done that.

That would violate the laws of supply and demand, nobody would buy a paperclip at that price, and competitors would soon arise.

No, their operating costs would be just the same compared to it's competitors. And if the competitors all jacked up their prices, then the one who didn't would capture a huge portion of market share, and it's profits would skyrocket. If the competitors all alternatively cut back on the quality of the product and customer care (but firing workers), then those competitors who did that would have a less satisfied customer base, and would lose business to those who didn't.
Those competitors aren't always harmed in the same amount, and it also increases demand for black market labor (illegals often bypass minimum wage laws altogether. Not all employers use the same measures in addressing the costs, so outcomes will not be the same.

You have to look at the unintended consequences. Thats exactly what the proponents of minimum wage increases are not doing.
They aren't all bad, nor are they all really unintentional.Thats nice, it does not change what is bad, and is unintentional. Keep in mind in many cases its quite intentional-labor unions benefit the most because many have contracts that mandate wages set above min. wage-so union shops all get raises-which again passes the costs on to the consumer

The mistake you are making is that you are taking a formula, and only looking at what would happen if one variable changed. All the variables in economics are dependent and codependent on each other, thus if one variable changes, they all change. that change is not always bad.

Have you taken math? One variable MAY change others, but it does not mean they ALL change. And while change is not always bad, here its demonstrably harmful. The myths that conceal reality are exceedingly hard to overcome, the left may never learn that-but they will have to deal with the consequences.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

I don't believe a completely automated world will happen. Employers might act like complete dumbasses from time to time, but they have to be aware of the fact that people actually have to buy what they produce.

That seems logical enough, but businesses don't act on the best behalf of the economy, they act in their own best interest.

No one business is large enough to significantly effect our macro-economy. I'm all for libertarianism when and where it works, but in this case, it can't work. That's where government comes in as a legitimate factor, when individual business doesn't provide what we need, then government can create mandates or programs that will.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Have you taken math? One variable MAY change others, but it does not mean they ALL change. And while change is not always bad, here its demonstrably harmful. The myths that conceal reality are exceedingly hard to overcome, the left may never learn that-but they will have to deal with the consequences.

When those variables are interconnected and all actually dependent on each other, they are just about guaranteed to change.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

When those variables are interconnected and all actually dependent on each other, they are just about guaranteed to change.

Some will change, but changing one variable does not mean they ALL change. Now we aren't even discussing basic econ but basic math. :lol:
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

US Conservative;1064098476]If an employers labor expenses are raised through legislation, the employer has the options of reducing the number of hours worked by each employee, or of laying off an employee.
You seem to be describing a VERY foolish employer. The good news is, most employers are not so silly as to do this...they understand that you staff for the labor, not for the cost of the staff.
This would lead to less service and more work for the remaining employees,
Again, this implies that our hypothetical incredibly foolish employers was not already getting a decent amount of productivity out of their employees, OR that said foolish employer is now going to give more HOURS to the existing employees...
OR the employer could raise prices to pass on the costs, making them less competitive which also hurts them long run.
According to you OWN Misis backed economic beliefs, competition would prevent this from happening.
In the end the employee, employer, and consumer are harmed by govt intervention into the employee-employer contract. This is basic econ, bro. Did you get any college?


Did you, smart guy?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

So despite the basic laws of economics, increasing operating costs magically benefits everyone?

Citations, please-and not from left wing blogs.

The entire 50s and 60s.



Start there, get back to me when you're done. Schools out for the day.
 
Back
Top Bottom