• 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 Laws Boosting Wages

aociswundumho said:
If you truly believe … every worker deserves a living wage ...
Click to expand...
Aociswundumho, I don’t believe the U.S. Congress would or should even consider passage of a guaranteed monthly or annual income until the nation has enacted and become accustomed to a wage rate of minimum purchasing power. Unlike the minimum wage rate, a guaranteed income implies guaranteed wages or public assistance for a guaranteed duration of weeks or months.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
TheEconomist said:
It is probably preferable that state authorities take position on how high to set the minimum wage. … Another point to be raised here is that when Washington D.C. imposes a rule, it's the same rule for everyone. …
Click to expand...
Economic justifications of the federal minimum wage rate.

Minimum wage rate’s purpose is reduction of incidents and extents of poverty among the working poor (which in turn bolsters the median rate).

Individual entities and their states’ economies can and often do net benefit from higher wage rate states, but lower wage states are economically of some net detriment to U.S. higher wage states. This is particularly the case between adjoining states.

The federal minimum rate is not a the uniformly effective minimum rate throughout USA’s 50 states, but they are not permitted to undermine the federal mineral rate with a lesser rate; it’s not as its opponents claim, “one rate to fit all”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
jpn said:
This is very good news for the lowest income segment. The fact that it isn't causing job loss is especially welcome.

Raising the minimum wage is something people have to go around the Republican Party to pass, as Arkansas did. Even though a $15/hr wage is very popular across the nation, the Republican Party almost uniformly opposes it without regard to actual data showing their fears unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Good news for those that don't lose their jobs or have their hours reduced which typically happens when minimum wage is hiked.
 
Bullseye said:
And most of the "rich" started out poor.
Click to expand...
Bullseye, I suppose the majority of the wealthy are generations beyond their poor ancestors; they did not start out poor. Donald trump and his family are examples of inherited wealth. Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Bullseye, I suppose the majority of the wealthy are generations beyond their poor ancestors; they did not start out poor. Donald trump and his family are examples of inherited wealth. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
Donald Trump isn't the only rich person in the United State. Most wealthy are people that started small businesses ang grew them. Yes there are some inheritance babies. But, most worked their way up. One or two generations removed at most.
 
Bullseye said:
Good news for those that don't lose their jobs or have their hours reduced which typically happens when minimum wage is hiked.
Click to expand...
Bllseye, every increase of the minimum wage has been net beneficial to our nation’s economy. The problem is modifications of the federal minimum wage rate are political determinations rather than annual determinations by federal statisticians. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Bullseye said:
Donald Trump isn't the only rich person in the United State. Most wealthy are people that started small businesses ang grew them. Yes there are some inheritance babies. But, most worked their way up. One or two generations removed at most.
Click to expand...
Bullseye, sorry to burst your bubble. Donald Trump is typical of those that are fortunately born into wealthy families. They did not "work their way up". They are not Horatio Alger examples of “rags to riches” stories. Respectfully, Supposn
 
jpn said:
This is very good news for the lowest income segment. The fact that it isn't causing job loss is especially welcome.

Raising the minimum wage is something people have to go around the Republican Party to pass, as Arkansas did. Even though a $15/hr wage is very popular across the nation, the Republican Party almost uniformly opposes it without regard to actual data showing their fears unwarranted.
Click to expand...

The statutory minimum varies considerably across the nation already. It’s not $7.25 everywhere. A $15 national minimum wage would more than double the cost of lowest wage labor in most of the poorest areas of the country while having almost no effect on the richest areas of the country (because their minimums are already at or nearing $15).
 
I'm Supposn said:
Bullseye, sorry to burst your bubble. Donald Trump is typical of those that are fortunately born into wealthy families. They did not "work their way up". They are not Horatio Alger examples of “rags to riches” stories. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

I don't give a crap about Donald Trump, this thread is about minimum wage. And many, many, many wealthy people HAVE worked their way up.
 
aociswundumho said:
If you truly believe that minimum wage laws do not cause unemployment, and if you also believe that every worker deserves a living wage, then why not argue for a $50 per hour minimum wage?
Click to expand...

Simple. It's not a black and white issue. I believe that the federal minimum wage is too low, and that almost all economies within America can not only withstand gradual increases, but flourish from them. A better paid lower class means a stronger economy over all. However, there is the problem with killing the golden goose. A $50 per hour minimum wage would be too high and drive many marginal companies out of business.

There is a sweet spot somewhere, where it's higher than businesses want to pay, but still sustainable and provides a living wage for people.

It's all about power. With unions basically being illegal in America, business has too much power. There is no countervailing power for labor. So business takes advantage of it. Thus the polarization of wealth we see today. As a result the wealthy are retaining too much profit at the detriment of the working class. This hollows out the middle class, which is the key driver of economic growth. Corporations used to share their profits with labor. But since the 1980s, the only imperative is to maximize profits at all costs, which means squeezing labor to the hilt.

What I believe a lot of conservatives don't want to understand is that a strong middle class is good economics. It's actually good for everyone, including the upper class. A strong middle class comes not solely from the "magic of the marketplace," but rather a free enterprise system that includes supports for labor, be they unions or government supports like minimum wages, child care laws, and so on.

I agree with some of the posters here that effective minimum wages will differ across the nation, so they are best left to local governments. However, a national standard that is low enough for the lesser performing economies to withstand is where we start--because the national standard is so low today that it does not sustain the worker. I see that the minimum wage of 1968 in today's dollars would be $11.76. The current minimum wage is $7.25. We should raise it, gradually to $11 or $12 over a number of years.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
I don't give a crap about Donald Trump, this thread is about minimum wage. And many, many, many wealthy people HAVE worked their way up.
Click to expand...

Sure they have. And on their way, they used our roads, our education, our health care, our educated work force, our infrastructure. They should pay a reasonable return to society. After all, they can afford it. And yet many wealthy people actually pay less in taxes than working class folks. Really.

Our taxes are not high compared to other wealthy countries. So we need to tax the wealthy more, and also pass laws to force the wealthy to share the profits with their labor force through enhanced benefits for child care, maternity leave, and so on.
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
This is very good news for the lowest income segment. The fact that it isn't causing job loss is especially welcome.

Raising the minimum wage is something people have to go around the Republican Party to pass, as Arkansas did. Even though a $15/hr wage is very popular across the nation, the Republican Party almost uniformly opposes it without regard to actual data showing their fears unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because some of those Republicans are aware of that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor, as well as products and services. Moreover, some of those Republicans might be aware that when the basic laws of microeconomics are seemingly violated, either the interpretation of the data is incorrect or the methodology flawed.

There are no exceptions to the laws of economics; there are only flawed understandings of the laws or the data.
 
Bullseye said:
Most wealthy are people that started small businesses ang grew them. Yes there are some inheritance babies. But, most worked their way up. One or two generations removed at most.
Click to expand...

Actually I doubt that very much. Think about it. For every rich person who grew a business, how many people are rich because of him or her even though they had little or nothing to do with the business? The spouse. The children. Relatives. Follow-on generations who inherit the wealth.

I'd like to see a study. Of all the rich people in the world, what percent actually earned that money themselves instead of marrying or inheriting or being born into it? 10%? 5%? Less? I don't know, but I bet it's really pretty small.
 
maxparrish said:
There are no exceptions to the laws of economics; there are only flawed understandings of the laws or the data.
Click to expand...

I know of very few "laws of economics" that have no exceptions. Please list a few. Seriously.
 
TheEconomist said:
It is probably preferable that state authorities take position on how high to set the minimum wage.

Not every area is the same and you do not have infinite slack to play with the minimum wage before the critiques are proven right. It's not exactly fair to make up an argument about a 50$ an hour minimum, but it does convey a spec of truth about those kinds of policies. If it is a matter of eating up some of the margin of additional benefits employers tend to get out of negotiations with low skill workers, you only have so much space to play with. And, circling back, that slack is unlikely to be the same everywhere.

Another point to be raised here is that when Washington D.C. imposes a rule, it's the same rule for everyone. If each State gets to pick and choose, at least there is a closer proximity between the people who make the bed and those who will lie in it and there is ultimately the option of leaving if you're really unahppy about it.
Click to expand...

I'm generally in total agreement. Nonetheless, there are certain other factors that militate for a federal minimum as well. Primarily two, in my view: competition between States for labor, and the maldistribution that occurs; and the relative immobility of labor, especially at the lower end of the economic scale. Recent studies have indicated that the latter factor is much stronger than the former and more pronounced than expected. Except in certain industries, labor is less mobile than it used to be, and far less than most models predicted. It takes a much bigger differential to instigate. I believe, in part, it is because industry used to commonly pay for moving costs, and rarely does anymore, so that burden, too, has shifted onto workers and is a bigger disincentive.

The competition between States occurs in multiple arenas - wage rates, tax levels, industrial base, resources, education levels - so it is difficult to isolate factors and incentives. In many respects it is good, in the "incubator of ideas" kind of way, but it also creates conditions of haves and have-nots. Mississippi, for example, scores low in multiple areas and these factors become strong disincentives and become mutually reinforcing. A federally-mandated minimum standard would ameliorate that in many respects. This is one of the reasons I support universal standards in several areas - education, healthcare, unemployment insurance, social security. Improving the baseline and portability of benefits eliminates some of the disincentives for labor mobility. This history of social security strongly supports this conclusion, as, to some extent, has the ACA.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The statutory minimum varies considerably across the nation already. It’s not $7.25 everywhere. A $15 national minimum wage would more than double the cost of lowest wage labor in most of the poorest areas of the country while having almost no effect on the richest areas of the country (because their minimums are already at or nearing $15).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which way this argument is supposed to cut. I see it as an argument for a federal minimum because it would tend to bring the floor higher. I think the argument is based upon assumptions that are not supported by data. Looked at differently, "a $15 national minimum wage would more than double the value of lowest wage labor in most of the poorest areas of the country."
 
maxparrish said:
There are no exceptions to the laws of economics; there are only flawed understandings of the laws or the data.
Click to expand...
which are more often evident in Republican policies than elsewhere. Thanks for that abject demonstration of assumption over reality.
 
jpn said:
Sure they have. And on their way, they used our roads, our education, our health care, our educated work force, our infrastructure. They should pay a reasonable return to society. After all, they can afford it. And yet many wealthy people actually pay less in taxes than working class folks. Really.

Our taxes are not high compared to other wealthy countries. So we need to tax the wealthy more, and also pass laws to force the wealthy to share the profits with their labor force through enhanced benefits for child care, maternity leave, and so on.
Click to expand...

The post to which you responded is indicative of the kind of lazy assumptions that are prevalent in these discussions. It is a fallacy that is the norm here: arguing from an anecdote - some rich people earned their way there, therefore most (or all) did so. Data do not support this assertion. See, Socioeconomic mobility in the United States (Wikipedia), and studies cited.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by I'm Supposn
Bullseye, sorry to burst your bubble. Donald Trump is typical of those that are fortunately born into wealthy families. They did not "work their way up". They are not Horatio Alger examples of “rags to riches” stories. ... Respectfully, Supposn
Bullseye said:
I don't give a crap about Donald Trump, this thread is about minimum wage. And many, many, many wealthy people HAVE worked their way up.
Click to expand...
Bullseye, that’s OK, Donald Trump doesn’t exert any effort or defecation on your behalf. You can continue living in the Horatio Alger world that exists only in your imagination.

Wealthy people are a minority of national population segments; The plurality of wealthy people in the United states and in most, if not in all nations, were born to wealthy families. Respectfully, Supposn

Bullseye’s manifesto is:
(1) Government screws up everything,
(2) When in doubt see rule 1.
(3) All faults are government’s fault
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm not sure which way this argument is supposed to cut. I see it as an argument for a federal minimum because it would tend to bring the floor higher. I think the argument is based upon assumptions that are not supported by data. Looked at differently, "a $15 national minimum wage would more than double the value of lowest wage labor in most of the poorest areas of the country."
Click to expand...
NWRatCon, your contention, "a $15 national minimum wage would more than double the value of lowest wage labor in most of the poorest areas of the country" may be true today. But no U.S. Congressional chamber has proposed an immediate $15 per hour minimum wage rate to be voted upon.
Since its enactment, modifications of the federal minimum wage rate have ben, as they should be gradually enacted. They have not shocked or disrupted labor markets, but have rather been economically and socially beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
lol. government solved this problem too not free markets. not enough morals to go around under capitalism, apparently.
Click to expand...

danielpalos said:
a lack of equality and equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

You do understand that most modern economies are a mixed economic model, there is no such thing now (and probably never was) as absolute capitalism outside of a classroom discussion.
 
TheEconomist said:
It is probably preferable that state authorities take position on how high to set the minimum wage.

Not every area is the same and you do not have infinite slack to play with the minimum wage before the critiques are proven right. It's not exactly fair to make up an argument about a 50$ an hour minimum, but it does convey a spec of truth about those kinds of policies. If it is a matter of eating up some of the margin of additional benefits employers tend to get out of negotiations with low skill workers, you only have so much space to play with. And, circling back, that slack is unlikely to be the same everywhere.

Another point to be raised here is that when Washington D.C. imposes a rule, it's the same rule for everyone. If each State gets to pick and choose, at least there is a closer proximity between the people who make the bed and those who will lie in it and there is ultimately the option of leaving if you're really unahppy about it.
Click to expand...

Since when does anyone negotiate any wages with low skilled workers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom