• 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

jpn

Retired Navy Commander
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
15,471
Reaction score
16,382
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The United States’ lowest-paid workers are seeing their paychecks rise at the fastest pace in more than a decade.

Slow wage growth has plagued the economy ever since jobs started coming back after the Great Recession. But that has been changing, with wages rising at all levels and especially for those at the bottom.

The Trump White House and Washington policymakers have touted the tight labor market as the main engine driving gains for the working class, but a Washington Post analysis of Labor Department data suggests that paychecks also grew because of a nationwide movement of rising minimum wages in various states and cities over the past couple of years.
[...]
“This suggests that the minimum wage has been a factor, though not the primary factor, behind wage growth at the lower end,” said economist Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California at San Diego, who has been more skeptical of the benefits of a higher minimum wage than some of his peers.

By contrast, wages for most workers do not reflect the same pattern. The other 75 percent of the workforce didn’t see pay hikes to the same degree, even in states where minimum wage increased. That reinforces the idea that rising minimum wages are the main reason that low-wage workers are doing better, as opposed to other forces.

“There are some very strong signals that minimum wages are in fact actually raising wages more for people at the bottom than you would expect just on tightening labor markets,” said the Economic Policy Institute’s Ben Zipperer, whose research on the effects of minimum wages has been widely cited.

And these paycheck pops for the poor are not happening only in urban, coastal enclaves. Consider Arkansas, where last year voters approved a plan to steadily hike the state minimum wage until it hits $11 an hour in 2021. Over the past three months, the state’s workers have seen the fastest wage growth of any state in the union.

And the move was popular. In 2018, the Arkansas ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage won 68 percent of the vote in an election where Republicans swept all the other key races. The wage hike was controversial, as Arkansas business owners worried about the labor costs associated with paying employees more and warned of job losses.

But that didn’t happen. In November, the Arkansas unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, down from 3.7 percent a year earlier.

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.
 
These things are not occurring in a vacuum. It makes sense that under present economic conditions the general economy can absorb increases in labor costs, for the lowest income quintile via minimum wage increases.

But that may not always be the case if economic conditions change.
 
I makes more sense to have (higher) MW laws enacted at the state (or local) level since that makes it much easier to adjust (match?) them to the state (or local) cost of living. More skilled labor will still command (demand?) higher than MW compensation and, of course, the effect on (fixed income) retirees must be considered.
 
These things are not occurring in a vacuum. It makes sense that under present economic conditions the general economy can absorb increases in labor costs, for the lowest income quintile via minimum wage increases.

But that may not always be the case if economic conditions change.

yet, the Richest can always get richer?
 
I makes more sense to have (higher) MW laws enacted at the state (or local) level since that makes it much easier to adjust (match?) them to the state (or local) cost of living. More skilled labor will still command (demand?) higher than MW compensation and, of course, the effect on (fixed income) retirees must be considered.

Yet, it wasn't "open markets" that boosted wages for the Poor, only the Richest.
 
Yet, it wasn't "open markets" that boosted wages for the Poor, only the Richest.

You should try actually earning a wage instead of demanding compensation from the state for simply loafing.
 
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.
JPN, the extent of the Minimum wage rate’s effect upon jobs’ rates are proportional and inversely related to the differences between the minimum’s and the jobs’ rates; lower rates are more, and higher rates are lesser affected by the minimum rate.
Minimum rate’s affects upon the 40 percentiles of U.S. employees earning the lowest wage rates, range from critical to substantial.

Although minimum wage rates to some extents bolster all other wage rates, legally mandated minimum wage rates primary purpose is to reduce poverty among the working poor. Poverty conditions are net detrimental, and the federal minimum wage rate is net beneficial to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
The Poor are denied and disparaged at every opportunity.

So here we are saying the present economic condition has a net benefit of being able to absorb minimum wage increases... all seemingly good news... and you are still complaining via these terrible generalities absent any input as to what should be done about it?
 
So here we are saying the present economic condition has a net benefit of being able to absorb minimum wage increases... all seemingly good news... and you are still complaining via these terrible generalities absent any input as to what should be done about it?

lol. government solved this problem too not free markets. not enough morals to go around under capitalism, apparently.
 
lol. government solved this problem too not free markets. not enough morals to go around under capitalism, apparently.

You could try to at least bother to align the talking points you regurgitate. You could also try to write sentences.
 
I am still not entirely sure what he is complaining about.

I have seen this user at play in other threads. More often than not, he responds using single-line comments that make absolutely no sense. And I don't mean this as a hyperbole, I mean that literally: he makes unintelligible comments. He won't explain to you that he is critical of the workings of markets. He will just blurt out overused clichés in the middle of something that is meant to be a sentence, yet clearly isn't one. Or he will use weird phrases like "at-will employment state," without context or explanation.

If you've ever seen James in this subforum, danielpalos is exactly like that except his grammar is worse and he leans to the left instead of leaning to the right.
 
This is very good news for the lowest income segment. The fact that it isn't causing job loss is especially welcome.


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?
 
I am glad to see the states are raising min. wage because the feds refuse to do as such and so do corporations.
 
If you truly believe that minimum wage laws do not cause unemployment, … then why not argue for a $50 per hour minimum wage?
Aociswundumho, if the minimum wage rate’s purchasing power is reduced or otherwise less enforced, I do not doubt additional jobs would be created for tasks that currently do not justify the current legally enforced minimum wage rate. A job’s wage rate is among the job's significant attributes. If the rate’s purchasing power’s less, the job’s economically of lesser worth.

Proponents contend lacking a definite and reasonably enforced minimum wage rate and/or approximately “full-employment”, incidences of wage rates "racing to the bottom will occur. They contend enforcement of unemployment insurance and a minimum wage rate of reasonable purchasing power is preferable to permitting reduction of the minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.

I don’t believe we “know” the minimum rate’s optimum purchasing power. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power “peaked” at $1.60 per hour in February – 1968, but our economy could have more benefitted if the minimum’s purchasing power had been further increased.

I do not “know” if we could increase the minimum’s purchasing power to an extent that would be economically detrimental, but 125% of the February – 1968 peak would not be testing that possibility.

Respectfully, Supposn
H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act” is a good bill, but opponents of the bill will refrain from mentioning the minimum hourly rate will not be $15 until 7th year after the bill's passage.
In the likely case that it's not passed through and added to our federal statutes, I urge U.S. Congressional members to continue striving and pass a bill that would increase the minimum wage rate by 12.5% of its purchasing power until it attains 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power. Thereafter the rate should be monitored and annually adjusted to retain that purchasing power. …
 
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?

It is conceivable that within certain limits (in other words, as long as it is sufficiently low), a minimum wage law will not have this kind of undesirable effect and might very well turn out to have the redistributive impact its proponents are looking to get.

The supply and demand model underlying most of the criticism of minimum wage laws is not exactly the best way to model the labor market. At a theoretical level, it produces excessively procyclical wage behavior unless you introduce either heroic assumptions about the aggregate elasticity of supply, or a combination of frictions in the model. But, at a more fundamental level, we actually can reliably dig into the data and take advantage of state-level initatives to estimate the impact of the policy changes without committing ourselves to a very structured view of how the market actually works. The classic example on this is the study of David Card (1990). Card presumed that if something like the ECON101 story was going to work, it should mostly apply to the less skilled subset of workers, so he focused on employment data in the fast food industry. The primary conclusion of David Card is that no matter how you try to look at it, the negative impacts on employment are just not there. One possibility is that there is no effect. Another possibility is that there was an effect, but it was so small Card didn't have the data to build up sufficient statistical power against the null.

However, whether you buy one or the other, this did not involve a massive hike. I would hesitate to take results from studies like this one and use them to imply a minimum wage increase that is substantially larger would still have no effect. I'm still very much convinced that there is a point at which the basic fact that operational costs increased will change the behavior of employers, even there might be something to the idea that there is some kind of bargaining going on and employers still have some breathing air above what they currently pay some workers.
 
I am glad to see the states are raising min. wage because the feds refuse to do as such and so do corporations.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom