• 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!

Minimum Wage Hikes Reduced Employment of Low-Skilled Workers

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
5,128
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
More evidence for those that don't believe basic econ applies to labor to ignore.

Minimum Wage Hikes Reduced Employment of Low-Skilled Workers | CNS News

Two economists from the University of California at San Diego took advantage of this natural experiment and examined employment changes in states that were “bound” and “unbound” by the law.

“…we find that minimum wage increases significantly reduced the employment of low-skilled workers. By the second year following the $7.25 minimum’s implementation, we estimate that targeted workers’ employment rates had fallen by 6 percentage points (8%) more in ‘bound’ states than in ‘unbound’ states. Over the late 2000s the average effective minimum wage rate rose by nearly 30% across the United States. Our best estimate is that these minimum wage increases reduced the employment of working-age adults by 0.7 percentage points. This accounts for 14% of the employment rate’s total decline over this time period and amounts to 1.4 million workers. A disproportionate 45% of the affected workers were young adults (aged 15 to 24).”

“We find that binding minimum wage increases reduced low-skilled individuals’ average monthly incomes. Targeted workers’ average incomes fell by an average of $100 over the first year and by an additional $50 over the following two years. …We provide direct evidence that such losses translate into meaningful reductions in upward economic mobility. Two years following the minimum wage increases we study, low-skilled workers had become significantly less likely to transition into higher-wage employment in bound states than in unbound states.
 
More evidence for those that don't believe basic econ applies to labor to ignore.

Minimum Wage Hikes Reduced Employment of Low-Skilled Workers | CNS News

Supply and demand applies to labor, too. Minimum wage hikes always mean jobs will be lost. It is, however, quite arguable that the benefit to the economy we get because minimum wage workers have more income to spend offsets and possibly outweighs the detriment of those lost jobs. But it's not cut and dry and even though it is arguable, it is almost impossible to prove.
 
Supply and demand applies to labor, too. Minimum wage hikes always mean jobs will be lost. It is, however, quite arguable that the benefit to the economy we get because minimum wage workers have more income to spend offsets and possibly outweighs the detriment of those lost jobs. But it's not cut and dry and even though it is arguable, it is almost impossible to prove.

The CBO seemed to just fine.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995


And the effects are common sense.

Too many people think (not saying you are one of them) that when you drastically raise the minimum wage that it only effects the burger-flipper types. Not true. IT ripples through much of the entire economy.

But it is economic common sense. If you raise the minimum wage from say $7.25/hr. to $9.00/hr., then you have to raise a WHOLE bunch of people's wages that have nothing to do with the minimum wage.


Take a large factory. IF you raise Jake's pay from $7.25/hr. to $9/hr. - suddenly, Lauren - who was making $9/hr. is getting paid the same as the far more inexperienced and less capable Jake. So, now the company has to raise Lauren's pay to about $10.50 an hour just to keep the gap going. But now Steve - who was making $10.50 - is getting paid the same as his subordinate (Lauren). So you have to raise his pay to $12/hr..
And so on up the pay chain, so that almost everyone in the company has to get a pay raise or have a worker's revolt from everyone except the minimum wage people.
And that is what you would have all across America. You cannot just force minimum wage up by roughly 25% (without any increase in productivity, btw) and have no ripple effects.
So, this means virtually everything manufacturered or serviced in America will go up in price as the extra pay raises work their way through the country.

But remember, there is ZERO increase in productivity...so these products/services are no better...just more expensive. But since foreign countries that import those goods into America had no such increase in pay, then that instantly makes American-made products even less competitive with imports then they already were. That hurts sales. And that causes layoffs at those American manufacturers. And probably causes increased hiring at foreign manufacturers that import to America.
Sure, the minimum wage people have more pay - but they are not idiots. They are going to buy the product that gives them the most for their dollars. And since American goods are now more expensive - but no better - since the big pay raise, then this new found pay will increasingly go offshore.

On top of all that, those on fixed incomes - like the poor and seniors - are going to be hurt by all this since the cost of American goods and services will go up (you cannot just raise production costs substantially with no increase in prices). So the government will have to step in and give them more handouts to makeup for the dwindling amount they can now buy. And this hurts taxpayers as they have to finance this added welfare.


Nothing is free in life. You cannot magically force people to pay employees more money - with no added increase in productivity - and magically get a better life for everyone. Life just does not work like that.

It could maybe work (to a point - for a while) if the whole world had the same minimum wage. But it does not and all a huge increase in the U.S. minimum wage will do primarily (imo) is a) make U.S. goods and services more expensive and b) force more U.S. consumer dollars off shore to less expensive imported goods manufacturers.
 
Minimum wage went up to 9.15 in CT. From 8.25, or something. My company employees a lot of minimum wage workers. None of them got laid off. Not in any of the stores.


The bottom line is this...a company doesn't hire or fire based on the expense of doing so, their primary reason is need. We NEED those employees, so even though the cost to employ them just went up, we can't AFFORD to let any of them go.

We have also not raised prices....well, except for beef. Beef is skyrocketing all over the place, though.
 
Supply and demand applies to labor, too. Minimum wage hikes always mean jobs will be lost. It is, however, quite arguable that the benefit to the economy we get because minimum wage workers have more income to spend offsets and possibly outweighs the detriment of those lost jobs. But it's not cut and dry and even though it is arguable, it is almost impossible to prove.

I believe that the cite in the OP made a comment about that:

“We find that binding minimum wage increases reduced low-skilled individuals’ average monthly incomes. Targeted workers’ average incomes fell by an average of $100 over the first year and by an additional $50 over the following two years. …We provide direct evidence that such losses translate into meaningful reductions in upward economic mobility. Two years following the minimum wage increases we study, low-skilled workers had become significantly less likely to transition into higher-wage employment in bound states than in unbound states.”

This evidence on income is particularly important because some statists make a rather utilitarian argument that it’s okay for some people to lose jobs because others will benefit.
 
Minimum wage went up to 9.15 in CT. From 8.25, or something. My company employees a lot of minimum wage workers. None of them got laid off. Not in any of the stores.


The bottom line is this...a company doesn't hire or fire based on the expense of doing so, their primary reason is need. We NEED those employees, so even though the cost to employ them just went up, we can't AFFORD to let any of them go.

We have also not raised prices....well, except for beef. Beef is skyrocketing all over the place, though.

Here is an example of what occurs, from an article on CT:
In Connecticut, some minimum-wage workers say raise hasn't helped much - LA Times

"Because you're raising the cost of hiring, you can get this unintended consequence where some of the people on the margin have their hours reduced," he said.

When Segui began working at Dunkin' Donuts, she was scheduled for 35 hours a week. A few months ago, she and other workers starting getting fewer hours. She now works from 20 to 27 hours a week.
Increases in the minimum wage between 2003 and 2007 had no effect on state poverty rates, according to a study by conservative-leaning economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, in part because only 11% of the workers helped by the increases lived in poor households.

More important, though, I'm sure you'll agree, is what occurs in more than one individual or job location - i.e. at the state level. Here is how it effected workers in CT:
How Minimum Wage Increased Unemployment and Reduced Job Creation in 2013 | Research | American Action Forum


Min wage at the time of the study: $8.25
unemployment rate increase due to MW over federal level - total population: 1.48%
unemployment rate increase due to MW over federal level - Teenagers: 4.67%
 
Minimum wage went up to 9.15 in CT. From 8.25, or something. My company employees a lot of minimum wage workers. None of them got laid off. Not in any of the stores.


The bottom line is this...a company doesn't hire or fire based on the expense of doing so, their primary reason is need. We NEED those employees, so even though the cost to employ them just went up, we can't AFFORD to let any of them go.

We have also not raised prices....well, except for beef. Beef is skyrocketing all over the place, though.

You do not hire people just on need. If that was the case, then pay would be irrelevant.

And your company has not raised prices for probably one of two reasons. a) they do not think they can because their customers will not bear it; or b) your comapnies profit margin was so great that they have no need to raise prices.

But one thing is 100% for certain - all other things being equal, your company is now making less money then iot used to assuming they are paying their people more money with zero increase in productivity. That is a fact.

Just because they have not yet raised prices does not mean they do not want to or will not soon be forced to. It just means they have not yet.

Nothing is free in business. If you raise costs then you have to raise prices or you will lower profit. Period.
 
More evidence for those that don't believe basic econ applies to labor to ignore.

Minimum Wage Hikes Reduced Employment of Low-Skilled Workers | CNS News

Wait a second... So what you are saying is that a commentary/opinion piece written on a very conservative website...

cnsnews.com
The Right News. Right NowTM.​

... a site that thinks sourcing it's own parent company's study is unbiased in any way...

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."​

You mean to say that they are saying something super uber-duber completely conservative? All while saying that you should only trust them because it's EVERYONE ELSE that is biased...

Color me shocked.
 
You will have to forgive me if I am unconvinced by a column on an economics blog site. Particularly considering that on one day the right wingers are gripping about how all the jobs being created are low wage / low skilled jobs, but then the next day they claim the minimum wage is killing low wage / low skilled jobs.

I know, I know, I know…. Its economists that wrote the column. Well economics is a bit unique as a field of science, as in more than any other scientific field the individual economists personal beliefs and ideology seems to influence their analysis. For example, on the same economics site one can find this gem: Global carbon taxation | VOX, CEPR , a column written by economists arguing for a carbon tax and for what the optimum rate for it should be. Somehow though, I doubt any of the right wingers on here will be starting a thread on it. ;)
 
You do not hire people just on need. If that was the case, then pay would be irrelevant.

And your company has not raised prices for probably one of two reasons. a) they do not think they can because their customers will not bear it; or b) your comapnies profit margin was so great that they have no need to raise prices.

But one thing is 100% for certain - all other things being equal, your company is now making less money then iot used to assuming they are paying their people more money with zero increase in productivity. That is a fact.

Just because they have not yet raised prices does not mean they do not want to or will not soon be forced to. It just means they have not yet.

Nothing is free in business. If you raise costs then you have to raise prices or you will lower profit. Period.

Actually, wages have lagged increases in working productivity for quite some time now. Kind of throws your contention out of the water.

WAGES-PRODUCTIVITY.jpg
 
Wait a second... So what you are saying is that a commentary/opinion piece written on a very conservative website...

cnsnews.com
The Right News. Right NowTM.​

... a site that thinks sourcing it's own parent company's study is unbiased in any way...

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."​

You mean to say that they are saying something super uber-duber completely conservative? All while saying that you should only trust them because it's EVERYONE ELSE that is biased...

Color me shocked.

Wait.. What? The study was not done by them.. It was done by "Two economists from the University of California at San Diego". Are you suggesting that CSN owns the University?
 
Lying GOP politicians taking credit for the greatest job growth in 15 years, 250,000 jobs on the average last year.

Forcing an increase in hours per week to 40 for ACA, as the GOP wants to do, will cause a REAL reduction in employment of low-skilled workers.

Pushing more dirty oil on the market will continue the loss of oil worker jobs that has now started .
 
Wait.. What? The study was not done by them.. It was done by "Two economists from the University of California at San Diego". Are you suggesting that CSN owns the University?

Nope. Not contending that at all. Just contending that your source has made it his mission, to use his words, to ignore all the studies he doesn't want to hear. Like this large list of studies at this page.

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

Screw all of those studies. This guy found a couple of students.
 
Nope. Not contending that at all. Just contending that your source has made it his mission, to use his words, to ignore all the studies he doesn't want to hear. Like this large list of studies at this page.

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

Screw all of those studies. This guy found a couple of students.

1) I know two of the older studies listed on that page, and they have been refuted with more up to date studies. I suspect that if I looked at some of the others, the same would be found.
2) Just for fun, I thought I'd take a look at who created the most recent studies (2009 forward)... Seems to be three groups - CEPR, NELP and UofCA Berkley... All far left advocates reaching far left conclusions. Not surprising.
3) It's far more than one study. There are actually multiple studies, including the CBO indicating such - of course, I am sure you already knew this.. It was just inconvenient for your argument.
 
Last edited:
I know two of the older studies listed on that page, and they have been refuted with more up to date studies. I suspect that if I looked at some of the others, the same would be found.

lol... sure.
 
You will have to forgive me if I am unconvinced by a column on an economics blog site. Particularly considering that on one day the right wingers are gripping about how all the jobs being created are low wage / low skilled jobs, but then the next day they claim the minimum wage is killing low wage / low skilled jobs.

1. the majority of new jobs being created are below median wage.
2. creating a price floor artificially reduces demand. This is true of any product, to include labor. Increasing the price floor, reduces demand.
3. #2 doesn't negate #1 and visa versa.

I know, I know, I know…. Its economists that wrote the column.

:shrug: actually they did a study and then wrote a column about it - and came broadly to the same conclusion as most of the available literature, to include the CBO.

Well economics is a bit unique as a field of science, as in more than any other scientific field the individual economists personal beliefs and ideology seems to influence their analysis.

True enough - it informs many base assumptions. However, that does not make it unique as a field of social science, or even of science.
 
Nope. Not contending that at all. Just contending that your source has made it his mission, to use his words, to ignore all the studies he doesn't want to hear. Like this large list of studies at this page.

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

Screw all of those studies. This guy found a couple of students.

:lol: no way, what a completely unbiased site. businessforafairminimumwage - I'm sure they come to this open minded :)

meanwhile....

National Bureau of Economics Working Paper 12663: Studies that focus on low-wage workers provide relatively overwhelming evidence that minimum wage increases result in strong disemployment effects

National Bureau of Economics Working Paper 18681: Utilizing proper control groups leads to stronger disemployment effects; the evidence shows that minimum wage increases still represent a trade-off between higher wages for some and unemployment for others

National Bureau of Economics Working Paper 19262: We find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, with the most pronounced effects on younger and low-wage workers

National Bureau of Economics Working Paper 6127: The Evidence indicates that Minimum Wage Increases mostly redistribute resources among the low wage demographics, with slightly more people falling into poverty due to the lost income of disemployment than rising out of it due to income increases.




In what other industry do you people think that hiking up the price for the exact same product increases demand?
 
Not really. Whos says they are a fixed ratio? Do you support wage decreases when profits are down?

If it means you keep your job? Yeah I do. Many people saw wages freezes for a few years following the "Great Recession" in 2008.
 
If it means you keep your job? Yeah I do. Many people saw wages freezes for a few years following the "Great Recession" in 2008.

Not to mention hours cut which is wage cut.
 
Why should they track?

Historically they always have. Its only been since 1980 or so that there has been a disparity. Its mostly due to globalization, the wide spread use of container ships, the decline of unions, technology, and various other macroeconomic forces. I am not saying that any of them are good or bad, just pointing out reality (I work in IT, its my job to make people more productive). A company that just pays minimum wage does indeed get more and more productivity out of their employees over time.

Studies on the minimum wage are all over the place. Some show it hurts employment, others find that the low wage job market is elastic and easily absorbs small increases in the minimum wage. Usually when the minimum wage has been increased it was only increased after most companies were paying more than the current minimum wage was. That is probably why economists are so divided over the impacts of minimum wage increases.
 
Back
Top Bottom