• 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!

Should min wage be removed?

Should min wage be removed?


  • Total voters
    68
You said that the general public would be against the removal of minimum wage. I asked for you to provide a source, so pony up a source.

the general public would be against removal of minimum wage...but of course the general public is made up of ****ing idiots.
 
the general public would be against removal of minimum wage...but of course the general public is made up of ****ing idiots.

Yeah particularly them ones with educations that can't find jobs in their field.. and take whatever they can get.
 
Actually, you only reaffirmed my statement since I said that the price of the hamburger cost roughly the same percentage as it did under the old minimum. You just happen to prove that the percentage was higher under the new minimum wage.

Eventually that goalpost is going to fall off the field.
 
Yes. Labor is essentially a market good; its price is determined by the same forces of supply and demand that govern every other market good. Government policies, like price controls on other goods, can alter the price of a good but not its value meaning that the minimum wage decreases the demand for labor and thus reduces the amount of labor that businesses choose to purchase. It drives people out of jobs and depresses the wages of jobs that would otherwise be worth more than the minimum wage.

If we want to help the working class in this country, we should working on keeping jobs here rather than driving them overseas.

Labor isn't a good; it's a factor of production. Minimum wage gives the incentive for companies to outsource.

We shouldn't be trying to keep those crappy jobs here. New, better job that are aided by technology, which makes the work easier and more efficient, are for what we should be striving. The way to accomplish that is by easing the tax burden and eliminating the hurdles entrepreneurs face and with which existing businesses deal.

I'm pretty sure not many Americans would want to be manufacturing toasters or spoons. Americans need to learn two words: workforce fluidity.
 
Last edited:
Labor isn't a good; it's a factor of production. Minimum wage gives the incentive for companies to outsource.

We shouldn't be trying to keep those crappy jobs here. New, better job that are aided by technology, which makes the work easier and more efficient, are for what we should be striving. The way to accomplish that is easing the tax burden and hurdles for entrepreneurs and existing businesses.

I'm pretty sure no Americans would want to be manufacturing toasters or spoons. Americans need to learn two words: industry fluidity.

that's just not true...we will always need lower paying jobs for those who are unable to work at higher paying jobs.
 
that's just not true...we will always need lower paying jobs for those who are unable to work at higher paying jobs.

You missed the point entirely.
 
Yeah particularly them ones with educations that can't find jobs in their field.. and take whatever they can get.

perhaps they should have chosen a field other than "liberal arts".

don't blame me because you were stupid enough to waste time and tuition on that french literature degree. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Eventually that goalpost is going to fall off the field.

I never moved the goal post, but you tried to put words in my mouth. In your quest to prove me wrong about my original statement you ended up proving me right. I love that. :lol:
 
double the minimum wage. what is the most likely scenario?

a. the company absorbs the hit and deals with its labor cost doubling

b. the company "lays off" half its employees and requires the remaining half to work twice as hard

c. the company lays of some percentage of employees and raises the cost to consumer to make up the difference

What if we just maintain a low minimum wage as opposed to none at all?

Job search effort increases.

Labor force participation increases.

It gives incentives to increase the human capital of the least productive workers and for firms to invest in physical capital for these jobs.

Quality of the jobs increase.

Causes 2% of those under 24 to become unemployed.

Minimizes the effects of employer dominated markets.
 
Last edited:
I can't remember which is more accurate the CPI or Inflation.

Wouldn't be a total bad idea, as long as, the minimum wage was a true floor wage and not a sort of political football.

You could also have it be a function of the average wage, since pretty much all earning have to be reported through the irs this would be pretty reliable. Only problem is all the layers of government, it would not really be feasable for all the states to agree on it, although they really wouldn't have too I guess.
 
Last edited:
libertarians and conservatives should know that the public widely supports the min wage. Just sayin. You can blither on and on about it all you like but your not going to gain any fans in the general public to support the elimination of the min wage. Basically you are just showing your cards. By all means attack the min wage. At least people will start to understand what you stand for.

Showing our cards that we don't want people at the lower end of society to be forced out of work completely rather than at least have some work and contribute to society? If those are my true cards, then I'm all in.
 
I wonder what the best way to get an idea of it would be.

There is no way with any accuracy. You have to look at what employment would be with minimum wage, and all other things being equal, what employment would be like without. This is impossible to do unless you have an experiment, and it is impossible to experiment on human behavior.
 
What if we just maintain a low minimum wage as opposed to none at all?

Job search effort increases.

Labor force participation increases.

It gives incentives to increase the human capital of the least productive workers and for firms to invest in physical capital for these jobs.

Quality of the jobs increase.

Causes 2% of those under 24 to become unemployed.

Minimizes the effects of employer dominated markets.

You're still engaging in the broken window fallacy when you make the argument that minimum wage supports investment in capital goods.
 
There is no way with any accuracy. You have to look at what employment would be with minimum wage, and all other things being equal, what employment would be like without. This is impossible to do unless you have an experiment, and it is impossible to experiment on human behavior.

There would be one way to do this and that would be using historical data from the 18th, 19th, and early part of the 20th centuries against the data we have now. About 6 or 7 years ago I researched into historical wages and found that up until the Federal Reserve Act that wages were pretty much the same for almost 200 years. A miller in the 1750's made $2.50 a day and a miller in 1912 made the same amount. Though this may have a lot to do with the difference between being paid in fiat currency and gold backed currency then with minimum wage. Unfortunately, any look at the effects of minimum wage will have to include the differences between gold and fiat currency.
 
There would be one way to do this and that would be using historical data from the 18th, 19th, and early part of the 20th centuries against the data we have now. About 6 or 7 years ago I researched into historical wages and found that up until the Federal Reserve Act that wages were pretty much the same for almost 200 years. A miller in the 1750's made $2.50 a day and a miller in 1912 made the same amount. Though this may have a lot to do with the difference between being paid in fiat currency and gold backed currency then with minimum wage. Unfortunately, any look at the effects of minimum wage will have to include the differences between gold and fiat currency.

In real terms purchasing power increased greatly during that time period.

If you want to look at historical facts, look at trends in unemployment. There were times in US history where unemployment fell below 2%. The norm has become 5% and above since the advent of minimum wage (but I'm not going to say that minimum wage is the only culprit).
 
In real terms purchasing power increased greatly during that time period.

If you want to look at historical facts, look at trends in unemployment. There were times in US history where unemployment fell below 2%. The norm has become 5% and above since the advent of minimum wage (but I'm not going to say that minimum wage is the only culprit).

Yup, the purchasing power of a dollar from 1820 in 2009 dollars is $15.15. That's quite a bit of loss in buying power and no amount of a minimum wage will overcome the loss of buying power in the currency under a fiat money system.
 
Actually, you only reaffirmed my statement since I said that the price of the hamburger cost roughly the same percentage as it did under the old minimum. You just happen to prove that the percentage was higher under the new minimum wage.

:roll: yes, because a 16% difference in the effective price of something is roughly the same percentage.
 
:roll: yes, because a 16% difference in the effective price of something is roughly the same percentage.

It could be depending on what your margin of error is.
 
:roll: yes, because a 16% difference in the effective price of something is roughly the same percentage.

According to your calculation the difference is .11% and under mine it was 1.5%, so yes it is roughly the same percentage.
 
Last edited:
According to your calculation the difference is .1% and under mine it was 1.5%, so yes it is roughly the same percentage.

Lets just use the average. However, we are in a recession, so normally hours would be higher, so it tilts to your favor. But I am feeling charitable today.



Employment Situation Summary

34.2*7.50= 256.5 1.09/256.5= .42%
34.2*3.25=111.15 .59/111.19= .50%



Except it didn't do that.

(.5-.42)/.5=16%

Given that this is your third post that you have had bad calculations, I am thinking you need to buy a calculator or learn to use excel (or at least type an equation into google)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom