$15/hour min wage - opposition op-ed on Slate.com

[glenn1]

From the man-bites-dog news file, an otherwise leftward leaning news site recognizes that raising the min wage *might* just involve trade-offs. Who knew that you couldn't just give every unskilled worker whatever wage you want and it will be paid for by some rich guy who won't notice it except that he would have to light his Cuban cigars with $50 bills rather than $100s? Heck, if the right would begin adopting its own version of reality-based economics we could truly be onto something here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...the_minimum_wage_to_15_would_hurt.single.html

 

[Ken g6]

There is a big difference between raising the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 to $10.10 versus raising it to $15.

I think that's the key takeaway here.

Also, I kind of expect fast food places to have mostly robots and between zero and one employee within the next 10-20 years no matter what happens to the minimum wage.

 

[First]

He concludes with the following:

This doesn’t strike me as a good time to decide that jobs paying less than $15 an hour should literally be against the law. There are millions of people—struggling teenagers, less-skilled immigrants, people who’ve been unemployed for years, ex-offenders who are trying to get on their feet—who need on-the-job experience if they’re ever going to be in positions to command higher wages down the road. Let’s increase wage subsidies for low-wage workers. Let’s expand apprenticeship programs. Let’s try all kinds of things, like celebrating employers that successfully upgrade the skills of their low-wage workers and not just the Googles of the world, which hire only the high-skilled and expect to get patted on the back for it. But let’s not lock millions of people out of entry-level employment by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

So no, actually, him being against $15/hr is not really a news story. It's more like common sense. If labor unions and fast food protesters thought they could really get $15/hr, they'd be arguing for $20. If they thought they could get $20/hr, they're be arguing for $25/hr or more. So taking the position of $15/hr is really just a pretty straight forward bargaining/negotiating position to take as a rhetorical device. In reality, $11-$12/hr is probably more realistic passing into law as a national minimum wage. And frankly, no one particularly well versed in the subject really thinks raising the minimum wage has that much of an employment effect in one direction or the other anymore. But on the other hand, it has a wonderful effect on improving the standard of living of low-wage Americans, that much is certain.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

From the man-bites-dog news file, an otherwise leftward leaning news site recognizes that raising the min wage *might* just involve trade-offs. Who knew that you couldn't just give every unskilled worker whatever wage you want and it will be paid for by some rich guy who won't notice it except that he would have to light his Cuban cigars with $50 bills rather than $100s? Heck, if the right would begin adopting its own version of reality-based economics we could truly be onto something here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...the_minimum_wage_to_15_would_hurt.single.html

You know Reihan Salam is a conservative columnist right? The executive editor of National Review? Pretty sure he doesn't qualify as representing anyone on the "left".

 

[fskimospy]

From the man-bites-dog news file, an otherwise leftward leaning news site recognizes that raising the min wage *might* just involve trade-offs. Who knew that you couldn't just give every unskilled worker whatever wage you want and it will be paid for by some rich guy who won't notice it except that he would have to light his Cuban cigars with $50 bills rather than $100s? Heck, if the right would begin adopting its own version of reality-based economics we could truly be onto something here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...the_minimum_wage_to_15_would_hurt.single.html

The guy who wrote the article is a conservative columnist and an editor for the National Review. The fact that he opposes the $15 minimum wage is not at all surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reihan_Salam

This is like people being shocked that the NYT posted an editorial from Bobby Jindal the other day. Both employ people from a range of ideological positions.

 

[senseamp]

Good luck explaining the difference to a Republican. You are probably better off explaining it to your wall.

 

[Jaskalas]

Raising the minimum wage to $15 would be a mere return to where this country once was back in my parent's day. When they repeat stories of how you could "pump gas and support a family".

Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, not even remotely. Why should we fear restoring some balance to the equation, why should we fear fewer people on food stamps and welfare?

Raising wages is a burden... but so are our taxes. In the end the higher wage is the better tax.

 

[smackababy]

But on the other hand, it has a wonderful effect on improving the standard of living of low-wage Americans, that much is certain.

Has this really been tested and proven? If every company in America suddenly had to pay 50% increased wage for the exact same production, do you think the majority of companies would simply eat the loss in profits? Increasing the cost of production and services increases the cost to the consumer. It might take not be immediate, but it will happen. And, the increase will surely outpace those of us who already make above the minimum wage faster than our wages are increasing.

 

[ivwshane]

Has this really been tested and proven? If every company in America suddenly had to pay 50% increased wage for the exact same production, do you think the majority of companies would simply eat the loss in profits? Increasing the cost of production and services increases the cost to the consumer. It might take not be immediate, but it will happen. And, the increase will surely outpace those of us who already make above the minimum wage faster than our wages are increasing.

Except that not every company in America would have to raise their wages. The median hourly rate is already around $15.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/02-16-wagedispersion.pdf


And as has been discussed many times on this board, simply "eating the cost" is all but one option and it ignores all other factors.

 

[smackababy]

Except that not every company in America would have to raise their wages. The median hourly rate is already around $15.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/02-16-wagedispersion.pdf


And as has been discussed many times on this board, simply "eating the cost" is all but one option and it ignores all other factors.

There is one factor that truly matters in business: the bottom line. If companies staffed mostly by sub $15 an hour workers (IE, most of the business in which these protesters and such are working for). How many employees do you think a company like Walmart has? And how many of them are making less than $15? Now, magically, they all make $15. Walmart is not going to simply take that loss of profit. It is just bad business. No company is simply going to accept the cost of production going up without adjusting the final cost of the good to help mitigate that. If they do, they are bad at business.

 

[senseamp]

The thread is about Slate.com supposedly opposing $15 minimum wage.
Slate.com is not opposed to $15 minimum wage, Reihan Salam (opinion columnist) is.
Since opponents of minimum $15 minimum wage have to prop up their arguments with a misrepresentation, I have to assume their arguments are lacking on substance. Otherwise why misrepresent?

 

[First]

Has this really been tested and proven? If every company in America suddenly had to pay 50% increased wage for the exact same production, do you think the majority of companies would simply eat the loss in profits? Increasing the cost of production and services increases the cost to the consumer. It might take not be immediate, but it will happen. And, the increase will surely outpace those of us who already make above the minimum wage faster than our wages are increasing.

There are tradeoffs in everything in life, so it's sort of a nonsensical and unimportant point to make since everyone informed on both sides of the debate know that consumers will absorb increased costs. The question is whether the net outcome is positive or not for more people or not. And the answer is absolutely yes, the increased labor costs businesses absorb are spread out across millions of customers, so the negative impact on the worker's spending power of increased consumer goods/services prices is by definition arithmetically minimal. The spending power a worker gets from a new minimum wage law that increases their wages $2/hr isn't going to be drastically reduced by a restaurant that increases their menu prices $2 per plate of food due to that new min. wage law. The math is still clearly in favor of the worker, and because all restaurants or other businesses will be subject to the federal law, the restaurant won't be at a competitive disadvantage in their industry.

 

[First]

There is one factor that truly matters in business: the bottom line. If companies staffed mostly by sub $15 an hour workers (IE, most of the business in which these protesters and such are working for). How many employees do you think a company like Walmart has? And how many of them are making less than $15? Now, magically, they all make $15. Walmart is not going to simply take that loss of profit. It is just bad business. No company is simply going to accept the cost of production going up without adjusting the final cost of the good to help mitigate that. If they do, they are bad at business.

Companies eat costs all the time, it's called the cost of doing business. High labor standards in the US is the cost of doing business. Businesses will pass on some of the increased costs, not 100%.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have observed that a lot of people who work at minimum wage would like to see it go up. while a lot of people who pay the minimum wage don't like minimum wages generally and would like to pay even less.

 

[nickqt]

You know Reihan Salam is a conservative columnist right? The executive editor of National Review? Pretty sure he doesn't qualify as representing anyone on the "left".

The guy who wrote the article is a conservative columnist and an editor for the National Review. The fact that he opposes the $15 minimum wage is not at all surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reihan_Salam

This is like people being shocked that the NYT posted an editorial from Bobby Jindal the other day. Both employ people from a range of ideological positions.

Facts do not penetrate the bubble. Their reality is self-contained in said bubble, and provides all valid information, forever.

Good luck explaining the difference to a Republican. You are probably better off explaining it to your wall.

This.

 

[Strk]

You know Reihan Salam is a conservative columnist right? The executive editor of National Review? Pretty sure he doesn't qualify as representing anyone on the "left".

Keep your facts out of this!

 

[smackababy]

There are tradeoffs in everything in life, so it's sort of a nonsensical and unimportant point to make since everyone informed on both sides of the debate know that consumers will absorb increased costs. The question is whether the net outcome is positive or not for more people or not. And the answer is absolutely yes, the increased labor costs businesses absorb are spread out across millions of customers, so the negative impact on the worker's spending power of increased consumer goods/services prices is by definition arithmetically minimal. The spending power a worker gets from a new minimum wage law that increases their wages $2/hr isn't going to be drastically reduced by a restaurant that increases their menu prices $2 per plate of food due to that new min. wage law. The math is still clearly in favor of the worker, and because all restaurants or other businesses will be subject to the federal law, the restaurant won't be at a competitive disadvantage in their industry.

Competitive advantage doesn't really mean much. Let's take some states with low minimum wages for example. In Alabama, minimum wage is the federal minimum wage (they don't have a state minimum wage). Most fast food workers are going to be making around that. Forcing an increase of nearly 100% is going to be a huge ($7.25 currently) hit on businesses. What kind of effect is this going to have on the economies? Grocery stores, restaurants, and most places staffed by entry level positions will have to raise their prices.

My issue isn't even the people who are getting the increase. It is more the people just above that (my GF, colledge educated, started off just above this new minimum wage...) who are going to slide into poverty. Their wages are not likely to increase faster than the cost of living will, thus sliding them closer to minimum wage workers than the opposite direction.

 

[First]

Competitive advantage doesn't really mean much. Let's take some states with low minimum wages for example. In Alabama, minimum wage is the federal minimum wage (they don't have a state minimum wage). Most fast food workers are going to be making around that. Forcing an increase of nearly 100% is going to be a huge ($7.25 currently) hit on businesses. What kind of effect is this going to have on the economies? Grocery stores, restaurants, and most places staffed by entry level positions will have to raise their prices.

The feds are going to raise minimum wage to $15/hr today. It ain't happening. It's a false narrative to think that will actually happen, as even labor union leaders admit. It's an open salvo in a negotiation. Most people think, say, $11/hr is more reasonable.

My issue isn't even the people who are getting the increase. It is more the people just above that (my GF, colledge educated, started off just above this new minimum wage...) who are going to slide into poverty. Their wages are not likely to increase faster than the cost of living will, thus sliding them closer to minimum wage workers than the opposite direction.

I don't really see a refutation of my point here, so I assume you think the wage increase more than makes up for businesses passing on that labor cost in the form of higher prices, yes?

In any case, there are always winners and losers in every law. But I don't see how someone making just above the minimum wage loses. These generally aren't static groups of people. They gain experience and skills from a (few) year(s) working at just above minimum wage, and then move on to higher paying jobs. I'm not sure what makes you think that won't keep up with the cost of living, as costs of living generally isn't at all impacted by minimum wage increases.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Slightly off topic......if trickle down works by putting more money in people/employers pockets why does the concept of trickle up fail?

 

[sm625]

$15 min wage = 1/3 of the minimum wage workforce instantly eliminated and on welfare. And an influx of about 2-5 million more illegal immigrant jobs. Sounds like a winning plan that just enough dumbed down idiots would vote for.

 

[senseamp]

Another doomsday prediction from the right, which has been wrong about everything related to the economy for the last 30 years.

 

[Atreus21]

Another doomsday prediction from the right, which has been wrong about everything related to the economy for the last 30 years.

Whereas the elementary economics of price floors appear to completely elude liberals.

 

[senseamp]

Whereas the elementary economics of price floors appear to completely elude liberals.

Seattle has raised minimum wage to $15, doomsday hasn't followed.
That's the problem for you Republicans your economic predictions have been proven wrong in real life. In states that have ignored your doomsday predictions to no ill effects, and states that followed your economic prescriptions to disaster.

 

[Atreus21]

Seattle has raised minimum wage to $15, doomsday hasn't followed.
That's the problem for you Republicans your economic predictions have been proven wrong in real life. In states that have ignored your doomsday predictions to no ill effects, and states that followed your economic prescriptions to disaster.

Yes, because wages in one city which has a high relative cost of living is clearly applicable to the rest of the country.

 

[ivwshane]

There is one factor that truly matters in business: the bottom line. If companies staffed mostly by sub $15 an hour workers (IE, most of the business in which these protesters and such are working for). How many employees do you think a company like Walmart has? And how many of them are making less than $15? Now, magically, they all make $15. Walmart is not going to simply take that loss of profit. It is just bad business. No company is simply going to accept the cost of production going up without adjusting the final cost of the good to help mitigate that. If they do, they are bad at business.

Unfortunately studies show you are wrong. Cost of goods are minimally affected when the minimum wage has been increased.

Not only that but if businesses could arbitrarily raise and not affect demand or reduce profit they would already be doing so. Businesses eat the cost of doing business all the time and they handle increased costs in many different ways, not just by increasing prices.