• 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!

Should min wage be removed?

Should min wage be removed?

  • Total voters
    68
megaprogman said:
(.5-.42)/.5=16%
Click to expand...

The joys of using mathematics to get them to say what you want them to say. My statement was in regards to the real numbers while you play a numbers game. Either way, it doesn't matter since it only proves my point that minimum wage does not help low income workers, which is what I said.
 
megaprogman said:
(.5-.42)/.5=16%

Given that this is your third post that you have had bad calculations, I am thinking you need to buy a calculator or learn to use excel (or at least type an equation into google)
Click to expand...

That's an absolute difference of .11%, and considering the figures that you two are using, that's probably well within the margin of error. You don't have enough evidence that the two are different, if I may use the terminology of the statistician for a second here.
 
The_Patriot said:
The joys of using mathematics to get them to say what you want them to say. My statement was in regards to the real numbers while you play a numbers game. Either way, it doesn't matter since it only proves my point that minimum wage does not help low income workers, which is what I said.
Click to expand...

Ahh, real numbers, such as the average work week for US workers, or those numbers that you helpfully provided. :lol:

Please tell me how a 16% reduction in the price of something does not help a low income worker. This should be interesting.
 
phattonez said:
That's an absolute difference of .11%, and considering the figures that you two are using, that's probably well within the margin of error. You don't have enough evidence that the two are different, if I may use the terminology of the statistician for a second here.
Click to expand...

How are you calculating absolute difference without a sample size?

Also, I think relative difference is the best calculation to use since we are looking at the difference between two situations, not two groups.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
How are you calculating absolute difference without a sample size?

Also, I think relative difference is the best calculation to use since we are looking at the difference between two situations, not two groups.
Click to expand...

Because you are working with proportions. Since you using numbers that are close to 0, relative differences are going to be very large even in absolute differences aren't. However, with most proportions that I've seen, the standard of error that I've seen is anywhere from 1-3%. So a difference of .11% is well below this standard of error, so you are looking at something that very likely comes from the same sample (again using the language of statistics).

I understand that the relative difference is 16%, but I think that if you presented this dilemma to a statistician they would be telling both of you the same thing.
 
megaprogman said:
Ahh, real numbers, such as the average work week for US workers, or those numbers that you helpfully provided. :lol:

Please tell me how a 16% reduction in the price of something does not help a low income worker. This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Based off of my and yours original calculation there was an increase in the price greater than the minimum wage provided.
@7.50/hr*40hr the burger (at 1.09) = .47% of wages
@3.15/hr*40hr the burget (at 0.59) = .36% of wages
Click to expand...

I do not accept your second set of numbers since you altered the minimum wage from 3.15 to 3.25. This is what I meant that you made the numbers say what you want them to say. Now for the increase in price you also figure in inflation.

What cost $.59 in 1988 would cost $1.06 in 2009. That .59 cents was back in 1988 when minimum wage was 3.15 an hour is now worth $1.06, but the hamburger is 3 cents more. Ergo, the prices of goods have outpaced the minimum wage.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Based off of my and yours original calculation there was an increase in the price greater than the minimum wage provided.


I do not accept your second set of numbers since you altered the minimum wage from 3.15 to 3.25. This is what I meant that you made the numbers say what you want them to say. Also, your second set of numbers do not account for a week's worth of meals, so that also alters your data. Would you actually care to try to be more accurate in your calculations? Now for the increase in price you also figure in inflation.

What cost $.59 in 1988 would cost $1.06 in 2009. That .59 cents was back in 1988 when minimum wage was 3.15 an hour is now worth $1.06, but the hamburger is 3 cents more. Ergo, the prices of goods have outpaced the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

I apologize for fat fingering a number. I do find it interesting that you are challenging a post that I altered based on your criticisms in an attempt to be more accurate at 34.2 hours opposed to 40 hours, based on government employment information.

However, at 7.50 an hour, a burget is still at .42% while at 3.25 it is at .55%. The guy making 7.50 is still better off.

As far as the rest of your post, I can not look at the data since your link does not work.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I apologize for fat fingering a number. I do find it interesting that you are challenging a post that I altered based on your criticisms in an attempt to be more accurate at 34.2 hours opposed to 40 hours, based on government employment information.

However, at 7.50 an hour, a burget is still at .42% while at 3.25 it is at .55%. The guy making 7.50 is still better off.
Click to expand...

Only when you don't account for inflation. After inflation, the guy making 7.50 is worse off then the guy making 3.15 since the 3 cents for inflation takes up .028% of the 1.09. This adds to your .42% for a total of .7% which is .15% higher then the guy making 3.15.

EDIT: My apologies on the link not working, but it works now.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Only when you don't account for inflation. After inflation, the guy making 7.50 is worse off then the guy making 3.15 since the 3 cents for inflation takes up .028% of the 1.09. This adds to your .42% for a total of .7% which is .15% higher then the guy making 3.15.

EDIT: My apologies on the link not working, but it works now.
Click to expand...

The inflation is already factored in the price increases of the burger, you are counting it twice.
 
megaprogman said:
The inflation is already factored in because prices have increased. You can't count it twice.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've shown that inflation and the minimum wage effect isn't fully factored in since 59 cents in 1988 is equal to 1.06 in 2009. A hamburger costs 1.09 so you have to account for the additional 3 cents.
 
The_Patriot said:
Actually, I've shown that inflation and the minimum wage effect isn't fully factored in since 59 cents in 1988 is equal to 1.06 in 2009. A hamburger costs 1.09 so you have to account for the additional 3 cents.
Click to expand...

You are aware that inflation is an average and will not affect all industries the same right? Also, you are aware that more than likely McDs will probably have better/more efficient processes that have brought down the cost to offset labor rates? heck, we went from apples to full on data centers since that time as an example.

Company costing and pricing is not the same as inflation and those two things cannot be used interchangeably. Do you even understand how a business works?
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
You are aware that inflation is an average and will not affect all industries the same right? Also, you are aware that more than likely McDs will probably have better/more efficient processes that have brought down the cost to offset labor rates? heck, we went from apples to full on data centers since that time as an example.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make a difference since I'm comparing the average price of what a hamburger from McDs cost in 1988 to what it costs now. It shows that minimum wage only makes people poorer through the glass floor effect and inflation.
 
The_Patriot said:
It doesn't make a difference since I'm comparing the average price of what a hamburger from McDs cost in 1988 to what it costs now. It shows that minimum wage only makes people poorer through the glass floor effect and inflation.
Click to expand...

If you have to compare apples to oranges to prove you point, than you have none. :shrug:

Also, taking a look at your link (thanks for fixing it), if the minimum wage had gone up at the pace of inflation, it would have been 5.82/hr in 2009, obviously 7.50 is higher. Thus wages are increasing faster than hamburgers, even with a 3 cent difference. Now we are comparing apples to apples :)
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
You're still engaging in the broken window fallacy when you make the argument that minimum wage supports investment in capital goods.
Click to expand...

The broken window fallacy? That is a small amount of unemployment, and it does not prove that we are worse off anyways. The market wage could be below the amount that maximizes the workers search effort. A minimum wage could make workers better off even if it caused increased unemployment.
 
No it should not be removed. That is unless we all want more people living on the government dole. People making min wage now can qualify for some government aid in many cases. Can you imagine if companies could now pay persons a fraction of the current min. wage? People would be much better off getting government assistance and not working at all vs working for $2 a hour.
 
drz-400 said:
The broken window fallacy? That is a small amount of unemployment, and it does not prove that we are worse off anyways. The market wage could be below the amount that maximizes the workers search effort. A minimum wage could make workers better off even if it caused increased unemployment.
Click to expand...

How do you prove that it is a small amount of unemployment? If it was a better proposition, then why don't companies do it willingly?
 
Baralis said:
No it should not be removed. That is unless we all want more people living on the government dole. People making min wage now can qualify for some government aid in many cases. Can you imagine if companies could now pay persons a fraction of the current min. wage? People would be much better off getting government assistance and not working at all vs working for $2 a hour.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage has no effect on the marginal productivity of labor.
 
megaprogman said:
I apologize for fat fingering a number. I do find it interesting that you are challenging a post that I altered based on your criticisms in an attempt to be more accurate at 34.2 hours opposed to 40 hours, based on government employment information.

However, at 7.50 an hour, a burget is still at .42% while at 3.25 it is at .55%. The guy making 7.50 is still better off.

As far as the rest of your post, I can not look at the data since your link does not work.
Click to expand...

The proportions of both of your fractions should be the same. However both of you had math errors. The only difference between yours and patriots (if he had divided the correct numbers) would have been yours would be 34.2 times smaller. They would be the same proportions. It does not matter if you compare with 1 day, 1 hour, or 1 minute.

Let me illustrate:

.59/3.25 = .1815

1.09/7.5 = .1453

.1815/.1453 = 1.249

.59/(3.25 * 34.2) = .005308

1.09/(7.5 * 34.2) = .0042495

.005308/.0042495 = 1.249

The scalar cancels out.

Also, since the inflation adjusted price of the burger is a higher percentage of the 3.25 wage, the lower wage is worse off.
 
My sister currently makes about $.75 over minimum wage. She is single and currently living in a 1 bdrm aprtmt. I highly doubt that if the government decided to completely remove minimum wage, that many of the stores wouldn't take advantage of it, and lower their current employees' wages, especially where she works and they don't have enough workers but don't want to hire more or give those on PT extra hours. So she suddenly gets a pay cut of even a dollar or 2 so that the store can hire more employees, and she can't afford to live there anymore, along with many of the other people she works with. The price of her apartment or those in the area are not going to suddenly drop overnight or even within a couple of months. Just like the cost of food, gas, and utilities won't drop nearly as fast as a wage cut takes effect. But people still have to pay their rent, utilities, phone bills, and buy food and gas. They still have to make car payments and insurance payments. Very few people who are working at minimum wage are making enough money to actually save for that fall back money, especially if they are just starting to be out on their own. Dropping the minimum wage now, or completely eliminating it all together would be disastrous in the real world. Even if you assume that such a thing would cut the costs of many goods and possibly services, it still would take much more time for those cuts to be seen than it would for someone to have to experience the pay cuts that would most likely result in evictions, huge increases in people on government assistance, many, many people with lower credit scores, less money to spend to boost the economy, and overall bad things happening to the economy.
 
phattonez said:
So if we made minimum wage $1 million, then we'd increase production by so much that we'd all be rich!
Click to expand...
That's a typical response from those that are against the minimum wage.
:failpail:
 
The_Patriot said:
One of the unintended consequences of minimum wage is that it pushes younger workers out of the labor force by the removal of entry level jobs. The younger workers are removed from the labor pool because businesses want to hire people with experience and younger workers do not have it. Minimum wage also impacts minorities more since minorities are often at a disadvantage in the market for entry level jobs. History of racism plays a role in this as well due to the stereotypes that certain races are lazy etc...
Click to expand...

Do you have any statistics to back up this malarkey?
 
phattonez said:
How do you prove that it is a small amount of unemployment? If it was a better proposition, then why don't companies do it willingly?
Click to expand...

I can't find the full text but here is the abstract:

Our updated estimates indicate that a 10 percent increase in the federal minimum wage (or the coverage rate) would reduce teenage (16-19) employment by about 1 percent, which is at the lower end of the range of estimates from previous studies. Because of substantial labor force withdrawal, the unemployment effects are practically zero. These minimum wage effects differ very little by sex, and there is no strong evidence that the effects vary by race. The study also finds a significant-albeit small-unemployment impact for young adults (20-24) and examines the consequences of numerous alternative statistical and mathematical specifications of the estimating model.
Click to expand...
-Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Kohen "Time Series Evidence on the Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment and Unemployment"

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Your second question:

If we have competitive markets a company cannot set prices, remember. If we have a monopsony, or some amount of market power firms will obviously price labor to benefit them more. There is evidence though that some companies would pay more than the market clearing price willingly though, it is called efficiency wages.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Yes, the minimum wage should be removed. Because the gap between the wealthy and the poor just isn't wide enough for my liking.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage should be indexed to congressional pay. If congress votes itself 5 %, MW should go up 10 %....
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Moderator's Warning:
Why don't you post some original commentary to go with your link?
Click to expand...

I think you should have deleted this thread when he didn't comply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom