• 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!

San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

apdst said:
Actually, it's going to make things worse for the working poor, because now, businesses are going to raise qualification standards for entry level positions. Some of those working poor won't be able to meet those standards and instead of having a low paying job, won't have any job at all.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement based on nothing at all. You'd be the first one to say that minimum wage jobs require little to no skill, so I don't see how you can argue that just because the pay grade was raised that all of the sudden the skill level is raised as well. So now, instead of just flipping burgers, they need to know Calculus too?

Do you really believe this stuff or do you just make it up as you go?
 
Opteron said:
I think this is good. Helps to prevent and reduce a poor class. Businesses can deal with less profits/higher prices, I think a high minimum wage is the way to go.
Click to expand...

How does it prevent and reduce a poor class?

The cost of goods, production, living and other expenses is so high that anyone earning min-wage will always be *the* poor - they'll just earn more than *other* poor but it won't be enough.

It perpetuates a psychological fallacy of security
 
The ideas behind the actions by San Francisco's city government are examples of why the economy of California is so excellent, why homes are so afforable there for working people and for the low unemployment rates in California. Right?

Candidly, I see it a a very clever way for San Francisco to try to keep poor people from moving there. To keep poor people away you just make everything unavoidable to them.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well, it depends on your goals. the people who instituted the minimum wage, for example, had very clear intentions for it. however, the "let's mandate that workers earn more so they will be better off" plan is a fallacy.


if by "no regulation" you mean "no minimum wage", then it is not stupid, such a move would, in fact, be wise.
Click to expand...
No, without a minimum wage you would be guarantee an underclass of workers. Supply would dictate a ridiculously low wage, the workers would have to work because they have no alternative, and a group would be overpowered by the rich, because those who have would be at the mercy of those who have for a job. This is not a symmetrical situation here that's what you're neglecting. Those who don't have don't have the ability to hold out for more while those who have can always pass an employee opportunity and wait them out.

cpwill said:
actually as far as i am aware, none of these exist on a supply/demand curve. I think you have the supply/demand curve confused with the free market, and I think you have a pretty false notion of how it operates. competition is death to monopolies, which historically have had to rely on government subsidy in one form or another in order to maintain.

that is correct - it generally results in the best possible outcome.

no, they do not. monopolies can exist in a market; but unless they are externally supported they tend to rapidly fall.

if they raise prices really high, then competition will eviscerate them. heck, even if they don't raise their prices at all, but stand still, competition will eviscerate them, just slower.
Click to expand...
You are failing to realize how powerful monopolies work. The can sign exclusive contracts with suppliers which prevents any other business from entering the market. Those suppliers that don't cooperate can be dumped against and put out of business. Free markets tend to aggregate into monopolies, because ideally, anything a small business can do, a larger business can do more efficiently ideally. Free markets do not result in the best possible outcome, what they do is maximize profit for a certain business. The goal of a free market is to maximize profit, not to provide the best possible outcome.

cpwill said:
no, it doesn't. but let's walk through the prototypical example: Henry Ford famously offered that he paid his workers higher wages so that they could afford to purchase his cars. This was a great advertising technique, but a poor economic one. Because the wages of his workers made up part of the price of the car, and so every time the wages were increased, so was the price of the vehicle.

When you artificially jack up the price of labor, business owners have generally three choices: A) raise prices B) make do with fewer employees, or C) close up shop and move elsewhere.

You are describing the effects of many business owners performing A, given California's unemployment rate it seems many have chosen B, and given the rate at which businesses and business owners are fleeing the state, it seems that many are also choosing C.

:) well done.
Click to expand...
Ok you are completely wrong here because high prices in cities are a result of property demand/demand to be in the city, not labor costs. Ok, I understand you're example, you left one choice out: D) deal with less profit. Most likely businesses will raise prices to recover the cost of labor and what this amounts to is a tax on everybody so that the poorest laborers can make a living wage. I'm ok with that. It amounts to a tax on consumers, or businesses making less profits, but either way it should be acceptable.
 
joko104 said:
The ideas behind the actions by San Francisco's city government are examples of why the economy of California is so excellent, why homes are so afforable there for working people and for the low unemployment rates in California. Right?

Candidly, I see it a a very clever way for San Francisco to try to keep poor people from moving there. To keep poor people away you just make everything unavoidable to them.
Click to expand...
That's a result of other policies which I don't wholly support, not because the minimum wage is high. I'm not sure but I think still that median wages are relatively higher in California than other states, but I don't have the statistics.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
How does it prevent and reduce a poor class?

The cost of goods, production, living and other expenses is so high that anyone earning min-wage will always be *the* poor - they'll just earn more than *other* poor but it won't be enough.

It perpetuates a psychological fallacy of security
Click to expand...
Australia has a relatively high minimum wage and it seems to work well. The minimum wage has to be raised comparable to other decent wages, but not too high to not be affordable.

Australia has $15 an hour minimum wage and is ranked more economically free than the U.S. « Exposing Faux Capitalism
 
apdst said:
Actually, it's going to make things worse for the working poor, because now, businesses are going to raise qualification standards for entry level positions. Some of those working poor won't be able to meet those standards and instead of having a low paying job, won't have any job at all.
Click to expand...

More long-term clients for the welfare state. More voters who can be counted on to vote for those who promise to perpetuate this situation.
 
no, it doesn't. but let's walk through the prototypical example: Henry Ford famously offered that he paid his workers higher wages so that they could afford to purchase his cars. This was a great advertising technique, but a poor economic one. Because the wages of his workers made up part of the price of the car, and so every time the wages were increased, so was the price of the vehicle.
Click to expand...
It depends on his labor costs per car, how much he increased the costs of labor. You have to remember, his costs per car decreases with every car he builds...unless he has to hire additional workers of if he has to build another factory. I'm pretty sure Henry Ford made good on the deal.
 
Opteron said:
No, without a minimum wage you would be guarantee an underclass of workers. Supply would dictate a ridiculously low wage, the workers would have to work because they have no alternative, and a group would be overpowered by the rich, because those who have would be at the mercy of those who have for a job.
Click to expand...


So pricing this “underclass” out of the job market entirely, depriving them of the opportunity to have any job at all, is an improvement? Not that I agree with your claim about what the situation is with this “underclass”, but even if you are correct, and even if this situation is as bad as you say it is, it is still better than the “solution” that you support. Someone who is part of this alleged “working underclass”, with a job that doesn't pay what you consider to be an adequate “living wage”, is still better off than someone with no job at all.

In the mean time, by artificially raising the price of labor at the bottom end, what is really being done is to devalue the currency in which these wages are paid, creating inflation that will have much broader impacts on everyone, well outside of the small group that this action proposes to “help”. A minimum wage of $7.50 per hour defines a dollar as having no more value that that of eight (8) minutes of labor from the lowest-grade worker who is going to be allowed to be employed. A minimum wage of $10 per hour lowers this maximum value of a dollar to that of six (6) minutes of labor from the lowest-grade worker who will be allowed to be employed, making the dollar worth 33% less than it was worth before.
 
Opteron said:
Australia has a relatively high minimum wage and it seems to work well. The minimum wage has to be raised comparable to other decent wages, but not too high to not be affordable.

Australia has $15 an hour minimum wage and is ranked more economically free than the U.S. « Exposing Faux Capitalism
Click to expand...

Yes - but that doesn't make them not be poor - everyone just earns moor. . . they're still the lower-class as far as stratification goes. I think it's disengenious to suggest otherwise.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - but that doesn't make them not be poor - everyone just earns moor. . . they're still the lower-class as far as stratification goes. I think it's disengenious to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, its a more equitable distribution of wages. The poor earn more, everybody does not earn more. Non-poor do not earn more, in fact, the non-poor pay more but the poor earn more.
 
Couple things:

I lived in San Francisco from 1999-2004. Rents are extremely high BUT that is mostly due to the fact that it is a very beautiful, and desirable city to live in, coupled with the fact that it is on a penninsula, and thus it is naturally bounded and cannot expand.

The OTHER costs of living were VERY LOW. I live in Chicago now. Living expenses are much cheaper, but everything else seems more expensive, from the cost of public transportation to the cost of food. I used to get cans of Tecate for 50 cents at the corner store in SF and it was awesome. Tacos were 1.50, and they were delicious. That was my experience.

Please keep my experience in mind when arguing instead of just conjecturing facts. ;)

I think SF can weather a high minimum wage (it was relatively high when I lived there) and I think its a good thing.
 
Opteron said:
No, its a more equitable distribution of wages. The poor earn more, everybody does not earn more. Non-poor do not earn more, in fact, the non-poor pay more but the poor earn more.
Click to expand...

That's not correct.

Other "poor" will pay more too, unless they just stop buying stuff.
Wages and prices are interconnected, assuming that a business owner will just "make less profits" is naive.

Some business owners are pulling a middle class wage, should one who makes $50k a year take a cut on their profits?
You guys don't think very far into this.
 
Temporal said:
It's not really that big of a deal. The major cities in Canada average $9-10/hr. I'm surprised San Fran is the first. It should have happened a long time ago. Cost of living has increased a lot but living wages have not.
Click to expand...

I'm also surprised by this. Mostly because I figured New York would have beaten us to the $10 mark by now. SF is expensive, NY is downright insane (cost of living-wise). Also, I agree with the contention that it's probably impossible to afford living in SF if you're making $10/hr.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So pricing this “underclass” out of the job market entirely, depriving them of the opportunity to have any job at all, is an improvement? Not that I agree with your claim about what the situation is with this “underclass”, but even if you are correct, and even if this situation is as bad as you say it is, it is still better than the “solution” that you support. Someone who is part of this alleged “working underclass”, with a job that doesn't pay what you consider to be an adequate “living wage”, is still better off than someone with no job at all.

In the mean time, by artificially raising the price of labor at the bottom end, what is really being done is to devalue the currency in which these wages are paid, creating inflation that will have much broader impacts on everyone, well outside of the small group that this action proposes to “help”. A minimum wage of $7.50 per hour defines a dollar as having no more value that that of eight (8) minutes of labor from the lowest-grade worker who is going to be allowed to be employed. A minimum wage of $10 per hour lowers this maximum value of a dollar to that of six (6) minutes of labor from the lowest-grade worker who will be allowed to be employed, making the dollar worth 33% less than it was worth before.
Click to expand...
Which way you going with this. On one hand you're saying that the employer will just hire less, then they would charge the same then. On the other hand you're saying that the employer will raise prices but have the same labor amount which costs more? Which one is it? It won't both create inflation and fire workers at the same time, its either one or the other.

And its not inflation, its a more equitable distribution of wages. Not all goods and services will charge more, only ones that involve low income labor, what we will see is a more equitable distribution of wages as a tax on everybody, which is ok with me.

By this logic, taxes would create inflation on everybody, because everyone would increase prices on everyone else and we would have runaway hyperinflation, but we don't have that. Even with the taxes we have today, when people raise taxes we don't see hyperinflation result.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's not correct.

Other "poor" will pay more too, unless they just stop buying stuff.
Wages and prices are interconnected, assuming that a business owner will just "make less profits" is naive.

Some business owners are pulling a middle class wage, should one who makes $50k a year take a cut on their profits?
You guys don't think very far into this.
Click to expand...
As I said, its a tax on everybody. The poor will pay a little more, so will everybody. But the poor will be making substantially more.

Again, you're playing both sides, you're saying prices will raise but also businesses can't afford to take a hit in profits? Its either one or the other.
 
Opteron said:
As I said, its a tax on everybody. The poor will pay a little more, so will everybody. But the poor will be making substantially more.

Again, you're playing both sides, you're saying prices will raise but also businesses can't afford to take a hit in profits? Its either one or the other.
Click to expand...

No I'm saying that your argument is naive, if you believe this is just an more equitable division of wages.

If anything, the benefit of a higher minimum wage will be realized immediately followed by a gradual increase in overall prices, resulting in the same situation as before.
That's the best case scenario.

The smarter person, would work in SF, while living outside of it, to best benefit from the wage increase.
Otherwise it's a wash.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - but that doesn't make them not be poor - everyone just earns moor. . . they're still the lower-class as far as stratification goes. I think it's disengenious to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think it comes from failing to understand that money is not wealth; it is only a unit by which wealth is measured and exchanged. And it is a unit whose value is not solid; which can vary according to conditions outside of itself. Reducing the value of the unit does not actually make anyone wealthier. More dollars doesn't mean more wealth, if at the same time, the value of those dollars is diminished.
 
I fear this new law will simply force some companies to lay off workers, rather than dip into their own profits. people are greedy like that.

the govt. can force a minimum wage....but they can't force folks to hire or not fire people.
 
apdst said:
A minimum wage that is too high will serve the purpose of creating more unemployment.
Click to expand...

Which does not mean that a minimum wage that is not too high does not serve a constructive and valuable purpose.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm saying that your argument is naive, if you believe this is just an more equitable division of wages.

If anything, the benefit of a higher minimum wage will be realized immediately followed by a gradual increase in overall prices, resulting in the same situation as before.
That's the best case scenario.

The smarter person, would work in SF, while living outside of it, to best benefit from the wage increase.
Otherwise it's a wash.
Click to expand...
By your logic, when people raise taxes, wouldn't that cause inflation too? Because then everybody will just raise prices and then make more money etc.., be able to pay more in taxes? I don't think that happens. The money supply is limited.

Don't forget, the poor will then be spending more and buying stuff with their wages, so that businesses will make more in revenue and have profits to balance it out.
 
Last edited:
LOL, the irony of this is incredible.

So, we're praising the minimum wage hike, but ignoring that San Francisco is about the most expensive place in the U.S. to live?

Kinda like paying $30,000 for a crappy Prius in order to save money on gas.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm saying that your argument is naive, if you believe this is just an more equitable division of wages.

If anything, the benefit of a higher minimum wage will be realized immediately followed by a gradual increase in overall prices, resulting in the same situation as before.
That's the best case scenario.

The smarter person, would work in SF, while living outside of it, to best benefit from the wage increase.
Otherwise it's a wash.
Click to expand...

Not 100 % true, or at least not as you mean. The only wages that go up with a minimum wage are those below or possibly at minimum wage, which should be less than most of the workforce in an area. Furthermore, wages are not the sole cost in any product or service. So, while prices will go up, it is less than what wages will go up for those at the bottom.
 
Opteron said:
By your logic, when people raise taxes, wouldn't that cause inflation too? Because then everybody will just raise prices and then make more money etc.., be able to pay more in taxes? I don't think that happens. The money supply is limited.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
The money supply is, almost always, expanding.

Opteron said:
Don't forget, the poor will then be spending more and buying stuff with their wages, so that businesses will make more in revenue and have profits to balance it out.
Click to expand...

The poor and everyone else, will be spending more per item, than they previously were because businesses make adjustment to item prices based on expenses.
 
Redress said:
Not 100 % true, or at least not as you mean. The only wages that go up with a minimum wage are those below or possibly at minimum wage, which should be less than most of the workforce in an area. Furthermore, wages are not the sole cost in any product or service. So, while prices will go up, it is less than what wages will go up for those at the bottom.
Click to expand...

While true, those minor expenses get priced into every item, where the increase has an effect.
Even if the price increase were only .01 per item, you have to multiply that based on the number of transactions per person, per item where the increase exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom