"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Anyway, thanks for the link.Simply requiring employers to pay $15 won't provide much ballast against these market forces. In fact, data indicate that minimum wages are ineffective at delivering benefits to poor or low-income families, and that many of the benefits flow to higher-income families. That's because minimum wages target low wages rather than low family incomes. And many minimum-wage workers are not poor or even in low-income families; nearly a quarter are teenagers who will eventually find better-paid jobs. Moreover, most poor families have no workers at all.
As a result, for every $5 in higher wages that a higher minimum imposes on employers, only about $1 goes to poor families, whereas roughly twice as much goes to families with incomes above the median....
Based on my research, I think it is likely that a $15 minimum wage in Los Angeles will lead some teenagers currently focused on their education to take part-time jobs at the new, higher minimum, and displace low-skilled workers from the jobs they now hold. That seems like a bad outcome.
The most comprehensive survey of minimum wage studies, which I conducted with William Wascher of the Federal Reserve System, found that two-thirds of studies point to negative employment effects, as do over 80% of the more credible studies.
$10.10 option would reduce employment by roughly
500,000 workers in the second half of 2016, relative to
what would happen under current law."
Last edited by DA60; 05-20-15 at 12:41 AM.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
BTW, I'd like to address Kevin's post in its own right. It is a challenge to a liberal talking point that is actually rational, reasonable, and free from snide comments--truly a rare find around here. Well done.
Libertarians and conservatives, please refer to this example of how you're supposed to do it.
Inb4 I get examples of how you're NOT supposed to do it.
one of those rules is as you raise the floor so do the several things.
it raises the cost to do business.
which means businesses have to increase revenue. there are only 3 ways they can do this.
1. let it eat their profit. (not going to happen)
2. Increase prices (can only increase it so much before people won't buy it)
3. Replace staff with more automation or fire people and work less hours.
well there is a 4th option.
hire more people working 20 hours a week which is about the same they would make working 40 hours now.
the next problem you have is called scale in pay.
if the cashier is making 15 an hour then the supervisor who is making a few dollars more is going to want a raise.
the IT guys is going to want a raise everyone is going to want a raise above what the lowest guy on the pole got.
it is called economy of scale. so now you have caused massive inflation as prices have to go up in order to pay for it all.
you also have priced some people out of a job.
I no longer hire no skilled workers. the training costs are just to much to bare.
basically you eliminate jobs for people that need them the most.
you lessen the ability for them to enter the job market.
"Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
Overall, even as the increase in Los Angeles' minimum wage will be phased in over 5 years, it should make for an interesting policy experiment. IMO, barring structural changes e.g., increased educational attainment, the minimum wage increase will likely have more adverse outcomes than what has been experienced in Seattle to date. Seattle, with its highly-educated population and knowledge-centered economy was in a much stronger position to handle the increase with modest negative outcomes. Los Angeles has a much less well-educated population and notably lower per capita income than Seattle. Put another way, it has a much larger lower-wage labor pool than Seattle and its local economy is much less productive than Seattle's. Unless Los Angeles can increase its economic productivity to a level necessary to finance the impact of the minimum wage increase, economic theory would suggest that it would experience more adverse labor market outcomes than Seattle has.
A brief comparison of the two cities is below:
Last edited by donsutherland1; 05-20-15 at 08:08 AM.
I'm of the opinion that minimum wage should be indexed to cost of living. It can be difficult for a person living in rural Kansas to understand that 15 bucks an hour still doesn't get a person very far in San Francisco, because 15 bucks is simply a lot more money in Kansas than San Francisco.
In general, though, large increases in the minimum wage will only exacerbate the trend towards conglomeration at the expense of small business. Small businesses are already squeezed and for those businesses having just a small handful of employees, a sudden increase in payroll can be very challenging.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos