• 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!

4 ways employers respond to Minimum Wage Laws( Besides Layoff)

What if...? said:
22 million people just got huge raises from state minimum wage hikes. 50% or more.

This almost certainly accounts for the 1% or so over inflation we are now seeing.
Click to expand...
Sure fine, booming economy had nothing to do with it, just zealot state and city legislators. :roll: BTW, I believe a lot of those legislated wage hikes are factored in over a period of years, unlike the ones voluntarily granted by companies enthusiastic about their prospected under the Trump economy.
 
Bullseye said:
Sure fine, booming economy had nothing to do with it, just zealot state and city legislators. :roll: BTW, I believe a lot of those legislated wage hikes are factored in over a period of years, unlike the ones voluntarily granted by companies enthusiastic about their prospected under the Trump economy.
Click to expand...

If you have a breakdown I'd like to see it.

Because all I've seen is conservatives giving trump all the credit for that increase.

As well as making repeated claims about "record highs" in areas that due to population growth regularly reach new "record highs".

More potatoes sold!

Yes. More people means more potatoes are eaten.

More people growing potatoes!

Yes. More people eating more potatoes means more people needed to grow potatoes.
 
What if...? said:
If you have a breakdown I'd like to see it.

Because all I've seen is conservatives giving trump all the credit for that increase.

As well as making repeated claims about "record highs" in areas that due to population growth regularly reach new "record highs".

More potatoes sold!

Yes. More people means more potatoes are eaten.

More people growing potatoes!

Yes. More people eating more potatoes means more people needed to grow potatoes.
Click to expand...
Is this your A-game response? :eek:
 
KLATTU said:
Cut Hours Rather Than Workers
Make Employees Work Harder
Cut Other Elements of Remuneration
Hire Fewer People, More Robots

Economists Grace Lordan and David Neumark analyze how changes to the minimum wage from 1980 to 2015 affected low-skill jobs in various sectors of the US economy, focusing particularly on "automatable jobs – jobs in which employers may find it easier to substitute machines for people,” such as packing boxes or operating a sewing machine. They find that across all industries they measured, raising the minimum wage by $1 equates to a decline in "automatable" jobs of 0.43 percent, with manufacturing even harder hit.

They conclude that

groups often ignored in the minimum wage literature are in fact quite vulnerable to employment changes and job loss because of automation following a minimum wage increase.

Minimum wage hikes are bad public policy. Economics, like all social sciences, has difficulty testing its models against data, but even where
we can, the evidence bears this out.

4 Ways Employers Respond to Minimum Wage Laws (Besides Laying Off Workers) - Foundation for Economic Education

Comments?
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of the Federal Govt. enabling companies to keep paying low wages by subsidizing their employees with food stamps and Medicaid? We might as well just have the Govt. pay the difference between their pay and $15 an hour then. Right?
 
iguanaman said:
So you are in favor of the Federal Govt. enabling companies to keep paying low wages by subsidizing their employees with food stamps and Medicaid? We might as well just have the Govt. pay the difference between their pay and $15 an hour then. Right?
Click to expand...

That's not all what hapens.
Are you suggesting that if the Govt removed those subsidies , the companies would be forced to pay more. In actual practice the opposite would happen.

EX person makes $ 10 an hour and recieves $ 10 an hour in benefits . The $10 an hour benefit is removed. Are you saying the employee is now in a position to command $20 an hour???

Nope. the greedy capitalist exploiter hasthe upper hand . They have the jobs. They can say - $10 an hour take it or leave it. The exploited worker has no choice . It's either that or panhandle.
 
KLATTU said:
That's not all what hapens.
Are you suggesting that if the Govt removed those subsidies , the companies would be forced to pay more. In actual practice the opposite would happen.

EX person makes $ 10 an hour and recieves $ 10 an hour in benefits . The $10 an hour benefit is removed. Are you saying the employee is now in a position to command $20 an hour???

Nope. the greedy capitalist exploiter hasthe upper hand . They have the jobs. They can say - $10 an hour take it or leave it. The exploited worker has no choice . It's either that or panhandle.
Click to expand...

That's why I said the choice is either raising the minimum or the Govt. paying the difference. Since it is already happening clandestinely why not just hand the difference over to the worker? At least we will be honest about the corporate socialism that is going on.
 
Bullseye said:
Is this your A-game response? :eek:
Click to expand...

Nah.

I save that for people who can think outside their programming.

And I note you didn't provide any citation for your claim before going for the ad hom.

And you know what that means.
 
What if...? said:
They actually try to claim that it was union wages that sent our jobs overseas.

When at $5/hr for unskulled american labor you can get 8 semi-skilled laborers for 14-16 hrs. With no labor burden.

American workers could never compete with that.

Have you noticed the meme from the right that it was just the left that outsourced our jobs?
Click to expand...

Half the diners and lunch counters in America have a sign beside the till that says, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Good for a grin but the other side of that coin is, if you're so rich you must be smart. Lot's 'n lot's of semi-literate people believe that wealthy people are smarter than most and they want to appear smart themselves by agreeing with wealthy people. So when a wealthy CEO says unions are bad for the country and only lazy slackers support them, they'll vote for the right-to-work candidate and say the union supporters are low-down socialists who don't care what's good for the country.

Jobs went south because of unfettered greed. Executive salaries went astronomical because of unfettered greed. Cheap illegal labour is being lured into America because of unfettered greed. And amazingly enough, ordinary Americans will say that trying to fetter greed is socialism and anti-American.
 
KLATTU said:
That's not all what hapens.
Are you suggesting that if the Govt removed those subsidies , the companies would be forced to pay more. In actual practice the opposite would happen.

EX person makes $ 10 an hour and recieves $ 10 an hour in benefits . The $10 an hour benefit is removed. Are you saying the employee is now in a position to command $20 an hour???

Nope. the greedy capitalist exploiter hasthe upper hand . They have the jobs. They can say - $10 an hour take it or leave it. The exploited worker has no choice . It's either that or panhandle.
Click to expand...

I've looked for research on the question and didn't find any, but conceptually I don't buy it. EITC is available only for workers, so when someone goes to work for a low wage job, they are agreeing to the wage plus the EITC, which is part of the pay, the benefits of working there.

So the clearing wage is in your example $20 an hour, not $10. You're suggesting that Walmart could get people to work for $10 even if the wage didn't pay for rent and food and healthcare for their kids and that this is sustainable over time. No walkouts, no big pressure to unionize, no protests from customers when they see workers and hear stories about them going hungry, etc.?

Do you really think that if low wage workers in this country couldn't afford healthcare for their kids, and who'd die untreated, that low wages (and government benefits) that don't provide that are sustainable? I don't.

I'll try to find the articles later, but I've read many times one of the benefits touted at the time of EITC and when it was expanded was to get people back to work who wouldn't work for the then going wage. It was a welfare to work program, and the idea was to subsidize wages for the bottom which would increase employment opportunities for those who otherwise wouldn't work, and provide incentives for them TO WORK, by raising the effective wages of entry level jobs. That makes conceptual sense to me.

I guess if you believe in the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in world history, would let its citizens starve and die from lack of healthcare and lack of shelter, then yeah, the company can say "Work or die" and that works. But the assumption we'd ever allow that to happen, that it could happen without a 'revolution' of some kind, is nonsense IMO.
 
KLATTU said:
That's not all what hapens.
Are you suggesting that if the Govt removed those subsidies , the companies would be forced to pay more. In actual practice the opposite would happen.

EX person makes $ 10 an hour and recieves $ 10 an hour in benefits . The $10 an hour benefit is removed. Are you saying the employee is now in a position to command $20 an hour???

Nope. the greedy capitalist exploiter hasthe upper hand . They have the jobs. They can say - $10 an hour take it or leave it. The exploited worker has no choice . It's either that or panhandle.
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that you admitted that capitalism is a game rigged toward the ownership class.

Y'all usually run with a job being a fair agreement between free individuals and therefore the wage is fair as well.
 
KLATTU said:
That's not all what hapens.
Are you suggesting that if the Govt removed those subsidies , the companies would be forced to pay more. In actual practice the opposite would happen.

EX person makes $ 10 an hour and recieves $ 10 an hour in benefits . The $10 an hour benefit is removed. Are you saying the employee is now in a position to command $20 an hour???

Nope. the greedy capitalist exploiter hasthe upper hand . They have the jobs. They can say - $10 an hour take it or leave it. The exploited worker has no choice . It's either that or panhandle.
Click to expand...

Same with rent. Pay what the landlord wants or become homeless. In violation of the law.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well to point out.. Unemployment in 1980 was about 7.5%

And in 2015 it was 5%

And now in 2018 about 4%.

Doesn't seem that minimum wage increases are hurting employment....
Click to expand...

If you double it it will. I'm no fan of the existence of the concept of minimum wage, but the fact that it exists is something I accept if you wanted to raise it by a percentage that is acceptable but raising it by 105% is not.

if people who makes $7.25 an hour work worth $15 an hour they would be paid $15 an hour. I know this is that work both kinds of jobs.
 
Grand Mal said:
Half the diners and lunch counters in America have a sign beside the till that says, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Good for a grin but the other side of that coin is, if you're so rich you must be smart. Lot's 'n lot's of semi-literate people believe that wealthy people are smarter than most and they want to appear smart themselves by agreeing with wealthy people. So when a wealthy CEO says unions are bad for the country and only lazy slackers support them, they'll vote for the right-to-work candidate and say the union supporters are low-down socialists who don't care what's good for the country.

Jobs went south because of unfettered greed. Executive salaries went astronomical because of unfettered greed. Cheap illegal labour is being lured into America because of unfettered greed. And amazingly enough, ordinary Americans will say that trying to fetter greed is socialism and anti-American.
Click to expand...

Lots of good money was paid for that programming.
 
CLAX1911 said:
If you double it it will. I'm no fan of the existence of the concept of minimum wage, but the fact that it exists is something I accept if you wanted to raise it by a percentage that is acceptable but raising it by 105% is not.

if people who makes $7.25 an hour work worth $15 an hour they would be paid $15 an hour. I know this is that work both kinds of jobs.
Click to expand...

If only they didn't have to eat. Or worse have mouths to feed. As long as privation and death is the alternative, wages will be the very least the ownership class is willing to pay to the commodity class.

And those amounts were set in the mid seventies. Jobs across the board pay about what they did then, adjusted for inflation. Gdp has gone up. Profits and private wealth have gone up. But a store clerk today makes what a store clerk made in 1975, adjusted for inflation. (If that). Housing has what, tripled since then?
 
What if...? said:
If only they didn't have to eat. Or worse have mouths to feed.
Click to expand...
sorry if their labor isn't worth 15 dollars an hour it never will be.

So 15 dollar minimum wage makes it illegal for them to sell their labor for it's worth.

Appeals to emotion not withstanding.

As long as privation and death is the alternative, wages will be the very least the ownership class is willing to pay to the commodity class.
Click to expand...
And should you make it a law to pay them more than they are willing to, it means automation outsorcing and layoffs.

And those amounts were set in the mid seventies. Jobs across the board pay about what they did then, adjusted for inflation. Gdp has gone up. Profits and private wealth have gone up. But a store clerk today makes what a store clerk made in 1975, adjusted for inflation. (If that). Housing has what, tripled since then?
Click to expand...
Yeah, anybody with a pulse can be a store clerk. That's an entry level job. If you want better pay gain skills. That's what everybody that makes more than minimum wage did.
 
What if...? said:
Nah.

I save that for people who can think outside their programming.

And I note you didn't provide any citation for your claim before going for the ad hom.

And you know what that means.
Click to expand...
Funny you'd accuse me of ad homs in a post were you drop one yourself. self-awareness not a strong suit, eh?


My "programming" is to depend on facts and data, and that's what I did. Your programming is "if Trump is involved deny it"
 
Jesse Booth said:
Factually incorrect, and intellectually dishonest. Bernie's campaign offered to raise their wages to meet the previous effective rate, but that was rejected by the union in a formal vote to maintain wages as a rate that provides better insurance.

Bernie Sanders Campaign Responds to $15 Minimum Wage Controversy with Better Hours for Staff
Click to expand...
What does the term "better hours" mean? Maybe we'll still pay you the same but adjust your hours so that it comes out to $15.
 
Grand Mal said:
Half the diners and lunch counters in America have a sign beside the till that says, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Good for a grin but the other side of that coin is, if you're so rich you must be smart. Lot's 'n lot's of semi-literate people believe that wealthy people are smarter than most and they want to appear smart themselves by agreeing with wealthy people. So when a wealthy CEO says unions are bad for the country and only lazy slackers support them, they'll vote for the right-to-work candidate and say the union supporters are low-down socialists who don't care what's good for the country.

Jobs went south because of unfettered greed. Executive salaries went astronomical because of unfettered greed. Cheap illegal labour is being lured into America because of unfettered greed. And amazingly enough, ordinary Americans will say that trying to fetter greed is socialism and anti-American.
Click to expand...

Eventually that greed bring everyone down but the weasels are keeping demand up by easy credit and social programs that supplement the low wages they are getting away with paying. I will say that wages no matter how low cannot compete with automation so the idea that raising the minimum wage will encourage more robots is a falsehood.
 
Bullseye said:
Funny you'd accuse me of ad homs in a post were you drop one yourself. self-awareness not a strong suit, eh?


My "programming" is to depend on facts and data, and that's what I did. Your programming is "if Trump is involved deny it"
Click to expand...

LOL When the facts prove Trump to be a criminal you "deny it'.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL When the facts prove Trump to be a criminal you "deny it'.
Click to expand...
What "facts"? Liberal mantras and TDS related rantings aren't facts.
 
Bullseye said:
What does the term "better hours" mean? Maybe we'll still pay you the same but adjust your hours so that it comes out to $15.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Did you miss the part where the union voted against the Sanders campaign's offer of better wages for field organizers in favor of maintaining better health insurance?

Shakir also told Newsweek that leadership at the campaign previously offered a pay increase for field organizers, but that the offer was rejected in a formal vote. According to the Post, Shakir offered organizer pay to be raised to $42,000 annually and extend the workweek to six days. The offer was reportedly rejected because it would have elevated staff to a pay level in which they'd be responsible to pay more of their own health care costs.
Click to expand...
 
Helix said:
i prefer debt free post secondary education / job training to just lifting the wage floor significantly.
Click to expand...
I prefer unicorns farting skittles.
i do support a minimum wage tied to inflation, and the $2.13 an hour tip scam should be made illegal. by tying it to inflation, i mean that it goes up automatically, and congress does nothing, which they are very good at. however, if we make it fifteen bucks, then those currently making fifteen bucks will now be making minimum wage, which will amount to about what it is right now shortly. it's a better idea to educate and train people.
Click to expand...
I can't support any policy that violates the person, property, or liberty of my fellow man. Hence, I can't support your call to forcibly set prices of labor.
 
KLATTU said:
Cut Hours Rather Than Workers
Make Employees Work Harder
Cut Other Elements of Remuneration
Hire Fewer People, More Robots

Economists Grace Lordan and David Neumark analyze how changes to the minimum wage from 1980 to 2015 affected low-skill jobs in various sectors of the US economy, focusing particularly on "automatable jobs – jobs in which employers may find it easier to substitute machines for people,” such as packing boxes or operating a sewing machine. They find that across all industries they measured, raising the minimum wage by $1 equates to a decline in "automatable" jobs of 0.43 percent, with manufacturing even harder hit.

They conclude that

groups often ignored in the minimum wage literature are in fact quite vulnerable to employment changes and job loss because of automation following a minimum wage increase.

Minimum wage hikes are bad public policy. Economics, like all social sciences, has difficulty testing its models against data, but even where
we can, the evidence bears this out.

4 Ways Employers Respond to Minimum Wage Laws (Besides Laying Off Workers) - Foundation for Economic Education

Comments?
Click to expand...

Once automation becomes economically feasible, companies and corporations will divert to that and fire the workers that did the job previously, regardless what type of wages are apid. If the automation can prove to do the job faster, produce more with acceptable cost...the worker loses every time. That is what is happening to the coal industry. Coal is reporting profits, but not jobs...because they are automating where they can.

Further, you WANT people to be able to make a good wage. That way they can buy and invest and save to do more; the tenets of capitalism. If the wages don't match the rate of inflation, you lose buying power (which can devalue the dollar, BTW). Companies can't sell more.

And lastly, when anyone says "has difficulty testing its models against data" as an excuse...you need to seriously doubt that person's work. The model responds to the data, you don't shape data to fit the model. That's just lying to yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom