Rasing the minimum wage could cost jobs

[Revoltingest]

That seems to be a reoccurring problem lately.

It's a recurring (no "o" in there, bub) problem always.
Talking cross purposes is frustrating, eh?

 

[Alceste]

Like I said, complex issues aren't black and white. Somethings will be hard for you to follow if you insist on an oversimplification even though they can't be properly conveyed in such a way.

Lol - the simplification is for your benefit, not mine. If you can't communicate complex subjects simply, you'll never be understood by 90% of the human population.

 

[Falvlun]

I feel that our current mininum wage is unrealistically low, considering inflation. Naturally, raising the minium wage, helps to an extent, to bridge that gap.

Additionally, I agree that raising the minnimum wage can stimulate the economy.

For the record, I've already mentioned and/or agreed to these points in this thread.

So these benefits outweigh the negatives you have so thoroughly outlined.

For the record, we've also acknowledged the negatives... but have presented them in a way to show why we think that it is still worth doing.

 

[Falvlun]

I've read Dawn's posts and I'm not seeing what people are struggling to comprehend.

Raising minimum wage is alright; it helps workers and has potential economic benefits.

But it also may well have negative effects, too, such as some business cutting jobs, raising the price of goods and services, or even closing doors to compensate for the increase expense.

Things aren't black and white. It's complex with multiple consequences both good and bad. The point is that everything should be weighed, and decisions based on what's realistic, feasible, and the most beneficial.

Post after post highlighted reasons why a minimum wage increase could be pointless and harmful. Pretty reasonable to wonder why anyone would support something they thought so little of.

Your post was balanced, in contrast.

Of course we want people to be able to support themselves, but shouldn't we try to create jobs that are actually worth a living wage rather than artificially inflate the cost of specific kinds of labor beyond what they're actually worth?

Is there some blue book somewhere that states that such-and-such labor is worth such-and-such amount of money?

When you say things like "artificially inflate" I'm wondering what the golden standard is.

Right now, I would say that labor has been chronically undervalued (while some has been astronomically overvalued.)

There is no standard; it is all arbitrary.

So on what do I base my assessment? A business wants to make as much money as possible. Thus, they will attempt to lower costs as far as possible in order to make more money. Their goal is to pay as little to their workforce as possible. Their goal is to undervalue labor. And without safeguards for the worker, that's precisely what they do and have done.

 

[dawny0826]

Ah yes. It's always the people's fault. Couldn't ever be the system.

I do not see why my working with underprivileged people should have any bearing on this. That's not my job, nor where my strengths lie.

Do you at least acknowledge that those born into a family with means have a much better shot at going to college, getting early advantages, etc?

But, it is my job and where my strengths lie and I really don't care to have such a discussion with you unless you're open to another point of view. You've demonstrated through our conversation in this thread that it's acceptable to twist and misreport my stance. Therefore, I have no desire to pursue this type of of conversation with you.

I refuse to blanket label as you choose to. Being born into "privilege" does not make the person that you will become, as you have the ability to make choices throughout your life.

The underprivliged in my community are provided a plethora of opportunity. If a youth born into an East side neighborhood desires to go to college, they can go to college.

 

[Alceste]

So these benefits outweigh the negatives you have so thoroughly outlined.

For the record, we've also acknowledged the negatives... but have presented them in a way to show why we think that it is still worth doing.

Yup. If a business can't survive and thrive without government subsidies in the form of benefits and tax exemptions for their full time employees, perhaps it shouldn't survive. It's funny how conservatives accept that cold hard truth when it comes to bailouts, but reject it when it comes to protecting low income labour from tax funded exploitation.

 

[Father Heathen]

Lol - the simplification is for your benefit, not mine. If you can't communicate complex subjects simply, you'll never be understood by 90% of the human population.

My benefit? You were the one upset by Dawn's suggestion that while she is fine with minimum wage increases, we should still be cautious about potentially negative consequences. It's you who preferred an oversimplified "wage increase = good vs. wage increase = evil" response over the suggestion that both the potential benefits and the potential repercussions should be carefully weighed and considered.

 

[dawny0826]

So these benefits outweigh the negatives you have so thoroughly outlined.

For the record, we've also acknowledged the negatives... but have presented them in a way to show why we think that it is still worth doing.

What negatives, specifically, have I suggested, save the possibility of negate impact on small business?

I'm not obligated to present pros and cons in a way that pleases you.

 

[Falvlun]

I refuse to blanket label as you choose to. Being born into "privilege" does not make the person that you will become, as you have the ability to make choices throughout your life.

Where did I say "If you are born into priviledge, you will go to college, you will be successful, you will suceed." I didn't; no blanket label. I said that you have a "better shot". I do not see how you cannot acknowledge that a kid growing up in an upper middle class family has a better shot of going to college than the kid who grew up in poverty (often without positive role models, a safe home environment, parental support, and reasonable education K-12).

The underprivliged in my community are provided a plethora of opportunity. If a youth born into an East side neighborhood desires to go to college, they can go to college.

And it's just as easy for them to do this, as easy for them to desire this, to know that they should do this, that they can do this, as it is for someone born to a more affluent family?

 

[Alceste]

My benefit? You were the one upset by Dawn's suggestion that while she is fine with minimum wage increases, we should still be cautious about potentially negative consequences. It's you who preferred an oversimplified "wage increase = good vs. wage increase = evil" response over the suggestion that both the potential benefits and the potential repercussions should be carefully weighed and considered.

Your replies to me are getting weirder and weirder - having less and less to do with anything I've actually written - with every passing thread. I'm stating to question the value of engaging with you at all. I like to debate ideas, not engage in flame wars.

Care to try again? This time, try directly addressing something specific I've written in this thread on the economic impact of minimum wage increases. If you can do that, I'm up for a conversation. If you can't, I'm not going to reply to you any more. It's a waste of time.

 

[dawny0826]

Where did I say "If you are born into priviledge, you will go to college, you will be successful, you will suceed." I didn't; no blanket label. I said that you have a "better shot". I do not see how you cannot acknowledge that a kid growing up in an upper middle class family has a better shot of going to college than the kid who grew up in poverty (often without positive role models, a safe home environment, parental support, and reasonable education K-12).

And it's just as easy for them to do this, as easy for them to desire this, to know that they should do this, that they can do this, as it is for someone born to a more affluent family?

Of course a child born into affluence, with structure and support has a better chance at establishing and reaching goals. But, I do not blanket label as the youth in our community are provided a plethora of opportunity.

 

[Father Heathen]

Post after post highlighted reasons why a minimum wage increase could be pointless and harmful. Pretty reasonable to wonder why anyone would support something they thought so little of.

Your post was balanced, in contrast.

Yet what I've said has been no different than what she has said. She never said that it would be "pointless and harmful", but that it might have both positive and negative consequences and that both should be taken into consideration. Acknowledging that something poses potential risks isn't the same as opposing that thing.

Is there some blue book somewhere that states that such-and-such labor is worth such-and-such amount of money?

When you say things like "artificially inflate" I'm wondering what the golden standard is.

Right now, I would say that labor has been chronically undervalued (while some has been astronomically overvalued.)

There is no standard; it is all arbitrary.

The value of a specific kind of labor is based on how much people are willing to pay for it, and how little people are willing to be paid for it, as with any other commodity. It's also based on how much value is produced by the labor itself.
Besides, isn't payment agreed upon when an applicant accepts a job? If someone were unsatisfied with their pay, why not seek employment and a higher paying position, elsewhere?

So on what do I base my assessment? A business wants to make as much money as possible. Thus, they will attempt to lower costs as far as possible in order to make more money. Their goal is to pay as little to their workforce as possible. Their goal is to undervalue labor. And without safeguards for the worker, that's precisely what they do and have done.

Companies compete for labor by offering wages and benefits that are better in comparison to their rivals.

 

[Falvlun]

What negatives, specifically, have I suggested, save the possibility of negate impact on small business?

I'm not obligated to present pros and cons in a way that pleases you.

Just sifted through your posts again.
1. Minimum wage increase will still not equate to a living wage; that people will assume that such an increase will allow them to live on it; that people will still bellyache. This was your #1 beef, to which you dedicated the bulk of your posts.

2. People need to get off their butts and work harder or smarter and shouldn't work a minimum wage job anyway. This was probably #2.

3. It will cause inflation.

4. Other unspecified "negative effects" upon the economy.

5. Positive effects will not be immediate.

6. The increase will put struggling small businesses out of business.

7. Government telling businesses what to pay their employees; businesses should be able to appeal a mandate.

 

[Falvlun]

The value of a specific kind of labor is based on how much people are willing to pay for it, and how little people are willing to be paid for it, as with any other commodity. It's also based on how much value is produced by the labor itself.
Besides, isn't payment agreed upon when an applicant accepts a job? If someone were unsatisfied with their pay, why not seek employment and a higher paying position, elsewhere?

Companies compete for labor by offering wages and benefits that are better in comparison to their rivals.

Companies compete for labor, sure. But that doesn't meant that, as a whole, they are not purposefully undervaluing the cost of labor, keeping it as low as possible.

Companies also have a much better bargaining chip than the workforce, largely because jobs, especially good jobs, are scarcer. Not many people have the option to simply walk out of a job offer because they think they should be paid more. If minimum wage was $5/hr people would still be accepting that. Heck, if it was room and board, people would be accepting that because if that's what everyone in their field is paying, then that's all there is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Companies also have a much better bargaining chip than the workforce, largely because jobs, especially good jobs, are scarcer. Not many people have the option to simply walk out of a job offer because they think they should be paid more. If minimum wage was $5/hr people would still be accepting that. Heck, if it was room and board, people would be accepting that because if that's what everyone in their field is paying, then that's all there is.

Were this true, then in some place as economically devastated as Michiganistan, we'd see many jobs being offered at min wage. But I've not seen anyone working for min wage in decades. The lowest level jobs here are all above min wage. Why? because of competition for labor.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your replies to me are getting weirder and weirder - having less and less to do with anything I've actually written - with every passing thread.

That's funny considering all of the times that you've misrepresented things that I've said and have responded to many of my posts with strange straw men and odd non-sequiturs. Pot, meet kettle.
The times that I've been impertinent is because of this.

I'm stating to question the value of engaging with you at all. I like to debate ideas, not engage in flame wars.

You keep accusing me of insults and flame wars, yet I don't recall engaging in any such thing. If I'm guilty of this, the proper course of action is to report the offenses.

Care to try again? This time, try directly addressing something specific I've written in this thread on the economic impact of minimum wage increases. If you can do that, I'm up for a conversation. If you can't, I'm not going to reply to you any more. It's a waste of time.

You claimed that you were confused by Dawn's posts and that they needed to be simplified down into black and white terms, and I was saying that the issue is too complex for it to be adequately and accurately explained in such a way.

 

[Falvlun]

Were this true, then in some place as economically devastated as Michiganistan, we'd see many jobs being offered at min wage. But I've not seen anyone working for min wage in decades. The lowest level jobs here are all above min wage. Why? because of competition for labor.

Haven't been to a Walmart or McDonald's lately, eh?

Oh, and what about the minimum wage workers that you've replaced with technology? I thought you said something about that earlier in the thread.

But, Michigan isn't self-contained, of course. Businesses wouldn't be able to get away paying their employees minimum wage if in the next state over they could get $10/hr.

Yes, I do acknowledge that competition does help keep wages from crashing completely, but I still think the balance of power is tipped towards business. And if there were no minimum wage laws or other places to run to, you better believe that wages would crash.

 

[dawny0826]

Just sifted through your posts again.
1. Minimum wage increase will still not equate to a living wage; that people will assume that such an increase will allow them to live on it; that people will still bellyache. This was your #1 beef, to which you dedicated the bulk of your posts.

2. People need to get off their butts and work harder or smarter and shouldn't work a minimum wage job anyway. This was probably #2.

3. It will cause inflation.

4. Other unspecified "negative effects" upon the economy.

5. Positive effects will not be immediate.

6. The increase will put struggling small businesses out of business.

7. Government telling businesses what to pay their employees; businesses should be able to appeal a mandate.

We have a problem here, because this list that you've provided above, isn't an entirely accurate depiction of what I've stated in this thread. You're off on several points.

So, again, I construe this as a mispresentation of my stance. And I'm not interested in defending my stance as I've done so on multiple occasions.

I didn't realize after reading the OP, that the requirements to participate in this thread were to present pros and cons in a specific format, nor did I realize that it would be unacceptable to simultaneously discuss other solutions that I find to be relative to the topic.

What's laughable is that my husband and I share the same stance. I communicated differently.

If you want a cookie for "winning", by all means, take it.

I'm alarmed by the misinterpretation that I've seen. Have a great day!

 

[Father Heathen]

Just sifted through your posts again.

At this point I think we should be quote what we're responding to rather than rely upon inaccurate paraphrasing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haven't been to a Walmart or McDonald's lately, eh?

Every now & then.
Do you know how much they pay here?

Oh, and what about the minimum wage workers that you've replaced with technology? I thought you said something about that earlier in the thread.

I've never had min wage workers. Those I replace made far more.
But the point of mentioning that was to illustrate a looming problem of workers losing jobs to machines/software. It needs to be addressed, but that's a separate issue.

But, Michigan isn't self-contained, of course. Businesses wouldn't be able to get away paying their employees minimum wage if in the next state over they could get $10/hr.

Exactly.

Yes, I do acknowledge that competition does help keep wages from crashing completely, but I still think the balance of power is tipped towards business.

Change the min wage won't change this though.

And if there were no minimum wage laws or other places to run to, you better believe that wages would crash.

This supposition is defeated by the fact that wages here are above min wage.