Is it time to replace slave (minimum) wage with human wages?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
LOL... because you say so?

Econ 101 should really be a required course...

No not because I say so, because the CBO says so plus a ton o other studies. Did you have something to the contrary? If you did you would have posted it when I asked for citations earlier.

Econ 101 is a great start, but there is more to economics than Econ 101, perhaps you could take some more advanced classes.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Thats the point you seem incapable of understanding, raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of labor for the entire country. The amount of workers on minimum wage is less than 3% of the hourly work force.

Your understanding of how minimum wage impacts the economy is just simply wrong and evidence of that is your use of government labor rates for labor that is not paid at the minimum wage level.

And the vast majority of that 3% are kids in school.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
Just out of curiosity, how much do you assclowns want to raise the minimum wage to?

Raising the minimum wage won't fix the problem but the minimum should be ~$9 and adjusted according to inflation. Congress gets a cost of living adjustment so I see no reason why the lowest paid shouldn't get one too.
 
Last edited:

BigChickenJim

Senior member
Jul 1, 2013
239
0
0
"Slave wage"? Wages "fit for a human being"? These are fluff phrases that mean absolutely nothing. The poverty line of the United States (around $11k for an individual this year) is well, well above the median income in the majority of the non-western world. Last year, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic came up with some pretty convincing calculations that indicated that the median global income is around $1200 per year once adjusted for varying costs of living. That goes along with the widely accepted fact that as much as a third of the world's population subsists on $2 a day.

The federal minimum wage in this nation is $7.25 per hour. That equates to roughly $14.5K in a full-time, two thousand hour work year. That means that even at the lowest legal wage in the U.S. you as an individual are beating the poverty line by 25% and the global median by a whopping 1000% plus. I'm sorry, but those figures do not paint a picture of slave labor or inhuman wages. Anyone who says that they do while a third of the world's population scrapes by on less than $2 a day is the worst kind of first-world hypocrite.

No, we do not need higher minimum wages right now. It's even debatable that we really need one at all. However, it is a certainty that what we do not need is yet more regulation on what should be a predominantly self-regulating market. It is our own incessant need to regulate the market without regard to potential consequences that created this situation in the first place. The rising costs of living, the massive currency inflation, the comparative plunge of worker wages are all due to our meddling in an economy so vast and intricate that we barely understand it well enough to participate in it, much less hope to improve it. Even worse, those arguing for a higher minimum wage seem completely blind to the fact that nearly every study on the employment effects of higher minimum wages is inconclusive at best. To say that it will result in more employment is nearly entirely unfounded. It is more likely that it would result in no noticeable employment changes and could potentially (though not certainly) even cost people their jobs. No, more regulation, more arbitrarily burdensome free-pass legislation is not the answer.

The minimum wage will rise slowly over time because we've created a situation in which it has to. When the wage falls beneath what is required to survive on a large scale, there will be an outcry just as we saw before the Congressional proceedings of 2007 that led to the current federal minimum wage. That's how our system works. However, the rise will not and should not ever result in a comparative gain in actual purchasing power. It will always be the minimum that you need to survive in our nation. That's the whole point, and no one is entitled to more than that. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more.

Make no mistake, you can survive on minimum wage. Will it be easy? No. Will you have to make some tough choices? Absolutely. But these things come down to the idea of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself as an individual, don't have kids for goodness' sake. If you can't afford to own something, don't buy it. If you can't eat what you want or do the things you'd like to, make do with what you can. In short, be responsible. Nobody is entitled to a comfortable standard of living; they are only entitled to the minimum ability to live.

If you don't like that, if you find such a life intolerable, stand up and do something about it. No one owes you anything and success isn't going to simply fall in your lap. If you want it, get out there and earn it. And don't even think about telling me about how your socio-economic position or skin color or sexual orientation has handicapped you. There are far, far too many success stories out there for me to buy that. It's an excuse, and a weak one at that. Strive to do better, push forward, make good choices, compete, and win or lose on your own merits instead of instinctively falling back on the idea that you've been so oppressed or downtrodden that you may as well not bother. Until the people in the lower classes of this country stop making excuses and expecting to be bailed out by others there will be no improvement in the balance of the class system. No amount of legislation will change that.

Personal responsibility, folks. Welcome to America.
 
Last edited:

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Make no mistake, you can survive on minimum wage. Will it be easy? No. Will you have to make some tough choices? Absolutely. But these things come down to the idea of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself as an individual, don't have kids for goodness' sake. If you can't afford to own something, don't buy it. If you can't eat what you want or do the things you'd like to, make do with what you can. In short, be responsible. Nobody is entitled to a comfortable standard of living; they are only entitled to the minimum ability to live.

This paragraph sums up the crux of the issue.

Minimum wage is the rock bottom. If you're an adult making minimum wage you're either really down on your luck such as temporary employment between jobs, have some sort of disability, or a total fucking loser. No one owes you a higher wage. You have to make yourself worth a higher wage and find a way to get it.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
"Slave wage"? Wages "fit for a human being"? These are fluff phrases that mean absolutely nothing. The poverty line of the United States (around $11k for an individual this year) is well, well above the median income in the majority of the non-western world. Last year, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic came up with some pretty convincing calculations that indicated that the median global income is around $1200 per year once adjusted for varying costs of living. That goes along with the widely accepted fact that as much as a third of the world's population subsists on $2 a day.

The federal minimum wage in this nation is $7.25 per hour. That equates to roughly $14.5K in a full-time, two thousand hour work year. That means that even at the lowest legal wage in the U.S. you as an individual are beating the poverty line by 25% and the global median by a whopping 1000% plus. I'm sorry, but those figures do not paint a picture of slave labor or inhuman wages. Anyone who says that they do while a third of the world's population scrapes by on less than $2 a day is the worst kind of first-world hypocrite.

No, we do not need higher minimum wages right now. It's even debatable that we really need one at all. However, it is a certainty that what we do not need is yet more regulation on what should be a predominantly self-regulating market. It is our own incessant need to regulate the market without regard to potential consequences that created this situation in the first place. The rising costs of living, the massive currency inflation, the comparative plunge of worker wages is all due to our meddling in an economy so vast and intricate that we barely understand it well enough to participate in it, much less hope to improve it. Even worse, those arguing for a higher minimum wage seem completely blind to the fact that nearly every study on the employment effects of higher minimum wages is inconclusive at best. To say that it will result in more employment is nearly entirely unfounded. It is more likely that it would result in no noticeable employment changes and could potentially (though not certainly) even cost people their jobs. No, more regulation, more arbitrarily burdensome free-pass legislation is not the answer.

The minimum wage will rise slowly over time because we've created a situation in which it has to. When the wage falls beneath what is required to survive on a large scale, there will be an outcry just as we saw before the Congressional proceedings of 2007 that led to the current federal minimum wage. That's how our system works. However, the rise will not and should not ever result in a comparative gain in actual purchasing power. It will always be the minimum that you need to survive in our nation. That's the whole point, and no one is entitled to more than that. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more.

Make no mistake, you can survive on minimum wage. Will it be easy? No. Will you have to make some tough choices? Absolutely. But these things come down to the idea of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself as an individual, don't have kids for goodness' sake. If you can't afford to own something, don't buy it. If you can't eat what you want or do the things you'd like to, make do with what you can. In short, be responsible. Nobody is entitled to a comfortable standard of living; they are only entitled to the minimum ability to live.

If you don't like that, if you find such a life intolerable, stand up and do something about it. No one owes you anything and success isn't going to simply fall in your lap. If you want it, get out there and earn it. And don't even think about telling me about how your socio-economic position or skin color or sexual orientation has handicapped you. There are far, far too many success stories out there for me to buy that. It's an excuse, and a weak one at that. Strive to do better, push forward, make good choices, compete, and win or lose on your own merits instead of instinctively falling back on the idea that you've been so oppressed or downtrodden that you may as well not bother. Until the people in the lower classes of this country stop making excuses and expecting to be bailed out by others there will be no improvement in the balance of the class system. No amount of legislation will change that.

Personal responsibility, folks. Welcome to America.
Where have you been all my life? :wub::wub::awe:
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Again if you raise the minimum wage, you will have more people entering the job market. With more decent humane wages more will be able to work, and productivity of society will significantly increase.
Having a high minimum wage prices lots of low skill workers right out of the job market. Imagine how many of your blind cripples would get a job if Goodwill had to pay them $12 an hour?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
Average age does not represent the majority. The majority of the people earning minimum wage are 25 or younger. For all intensive purposes, kids.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mum-wage-single-parents-or-suburban-teenagers

Actually it's around 50% of minimum age workers are 25 and younger and that number isn't growing. So that's hardly a majority as you now claim and it certainly isn't mostly kids in school as you originally claimed.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm


Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)


Here is a little outdated info but it gives you a good break down by age group:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/89221883
 

BigChickenJim

Senior member
Jul 1, 2013
239
0
0
Having a high minimum wage prices lots of low skill workers right out of the job market. Imagine how many of your blind cripples would get a job if Goodwill had to pay them $12 an hour?

You're wasting your breath. There is no verifiable correlation between employment spikes and minimum wage increases and anyone with even their pinky toe dipped into economic research knows that. However, common sense tells you that if you force wages--and thus operating expenses--higher, at least some business will have to downsize. That result becomes exponentially more likely with large increases like the one being hinted at in the original post. Again, that's common knowledge among educated individuals. It comes down to simple math.

Those facts won't do you any good, though. Progressives have never allowed pesky things like economic research or common sense or basic math to stand in their way. It's hard to listen to sense when you are busy looking for the next handout or freebie. And therein lies the real issue...
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Actually it's around 50% of minimum age workers are 25 and younger and that number isn't growing. So that's hardly a majority as you now claim and it certainly isn't mostly kids in school as you originally claimed.

50.6% are in the 16 to 25 year group, so it's not "around" 50%, it's over 50% which is a majority. If you can find another age group with more I am all ears.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
You're wasting your breath. There is no verifiable correlation between employment spikes and minimum wage increases and anyone with even their pinky toe dipped into economic research knows that. However, common sense tells you that if you force wages--and thus operating expenses--higher, at least some business will have to downsize. That result becomes exponentially more likely with large increases like the one being hinted at in the original post. Again, that's common knowledge among educated individuals. It comes down to simple math.

Those facts won't do you any good, though. Progressives have never allowed pesky things like economic research or common sense or basic math to stand in their way. It's hard to listen to sense when you are busy looking for the next handout or freebie. And therein lies the real issue...

Lol! So in one sentence you say there is no correlation between employment and rasing the minimum wage and then in the next sentence you say that the affect is common sense and progressives never let pesky things like research get in their way!

You are either being incredibly ironic or you are an idiot.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Lol! So in one sentence you say there is no correlation between employment and rasing the minimum wage and then in the next sentence you say that the affect is common sense and progressives never let pesky things like research get in their way!

You are either being incredibly ironic or you are an idiot.
Going from $7.25 to $12 would be an unprecedented raise. I know you're saying $9 but I think that would still be considered "slave wages" by the OP.

Given that 95% of the jobs currently held are above minimum wage don't you think the problem isn't as big of a deal as you might think?
 

BigChickenJim

Senior member
Jul 1, 2013
239
0
0
Lol! So in one sentence you say there is no correlation between employment and rasing the minimum wage and then in the next sentence you say that the affect is common sense and progressives never let pesky things like research get in their way!

You are either being incredibly ironic or you are an idiot.

An employment "spike" is an increase. There is no verifiable correlation between minimum wage increases and employment increases. The other side of that equation, however, is perfectly verifiable via basic knowledge.

Work on your reading comprehension skills before you call people idiots--otherwise you look like one yourself.

You can't read a sentence or understand a simple concept, but you expect people to believe what you have to say. Thank you for exemplifying what's wrong with progressive thought.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
An employment "spike" is an increase. There is no verifiable correlation between minimum wage increases and employment increases. The other side of that equation, however, is perfectly verifiable via basic knowledge.

Work on your reading comprehension skills before you call people idiots--otherwise you look like one yourself.

You can't read and understand a simple passage, but expect people to believe what you have to say. Thank you for exemplifying what's wrong with progressive thought.

There is no correlation for either side of the arguement, you idiot. That's why you claim it's basic knowledge but can't cite empirical studies to back up your claim. Reading comprehension is a skill you haven't mastered apparently.

Nice try on the straw man though.

I appreciate your demonstration of the defect in the righty brain though; if you think it's true it must be true. Lol!
 
Last edited:

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I'll say it again: for every 1000 people earning minimum wage, each $1 raise in minimum wage would cost businesses roughly $2,000,000 per year in just wages (not including the additional taxes they'd also have to pay).

Progressives honestly believe that money should/will come straight out of CEO paychecks, rather than from other rows in the accounting sheets (such as prices, R&D, personnel, benefits, etc).

They're f'n delusional and always lead with emotion, rather than facts and reason.
 
Last edited:

BigChickenJim

Senior member
Jul 1, 2013
239
0
0
There is no correlation for either side of the arguement, you idiot. That's why you claim it's basic knowledge but can't cite empirical studies to back up your claim. Reading comprehension is a skill you haven't mastered apparently.

Nice try on the straw man though.

I appreciate your demonstration of the defect in the righty brain though; if you think it's true it must be true. Lol!

I have to provide evidence of universally accepted economic foundations and basic business principles? No thanks, I'm not your professor. You're welcome to purchase a textbook if you doubt the veracity of my claims. I'm a good sport, though, and I'll give you a quick refresher for free. I know how much you guys like free stuff, after all. Here we go: higher operating costs mean lower profit margins for businesses. Raising the minimum wage will--and there's no question about this--raise operating costs. Those higher operating costs will--again, no question--lower profit margins. That means companies will have to modify another variable to maintain profit margins. Those variables could be in many areas (price increases, negative scaling, outsourcing, the list goes on and on), but employment is certainly one of them. Thus a higher wage will likely result in some people losing their jobs. That little process is called for-profit business. You may disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth.

What we have, then, is a situation in which there's no reason to believe that there will be a statistically valid employment increase and every reason to believe it could result in job loss or other undesirable consequences, all so a small group of people get to live more comfortable lives than they are entitled to under the law. We call that a bad idea.

Look, I understand that you're a little embarrassed that you attacked me over a reading error on your part, but attempting to project your mistake onto someone else is... well, adolescent. So is calling someone names on the internet. Of course, if you had a valid counterpoint you wouldn't have leapt on the first perceived (incorrectly in this case) error you saw and attempted to use it to support a flagrant ad hominem attack.

Also, I'm not convinced you understand what a straw man argument is given that it was you who used that particular fallacy when you attempted to back me into a logical corner based on your misreading of my statement and resultant false characterization of my argument. There's an important lesson here: you shouldn't use fallacies to strengthen your position, especially if you don't adequately understand them. It usually backfires.

Please don't try to run me up into a corner with shoddy logic, false criticisms, and outright personal insults. I'm not your typical uninformed internet scrub and those kinds of tactics aren't going to work with me. I'm not opposed to legitimate debate, but unless you're able to make valid, non-hostile arguments then I just have to write you off as another angry progressive who would rather bully his way through the issues than discuss them.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
I have to provide evidence of universally accepted economic foundations and basic business principles? No thanks, I'm not your professor. You're welcome to purchase a textbook if you doubt the veracity of my claims. I'm a good sport, though, and I'll give you a quick refresher for free. I know how much you guys like free stuff, after all. Here we go: higher operating costs mean lower profit margins for businesses. Raising the minimum wage will--and there's no question about this--raise operating costs. Those higher operating costs will--again, no question--lower profit margins. That means companies will have to modify another variable to maintain profit margins. Those variables could be in many areas (price increases, negative scaling, outsourcing, the list goes on and on), but employment is certainly one of them. Thus a higher wage will likely result in some people losing their jobs. That little process is called for-profit business. You may disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth.

What we have, then, is a situation in which there's no reason to believe that there will be a statistically valid employment increase and every reason to believe it could result in job loss or other undesirable consequences, all so a small group of people get to live more comfortable lives than they are entitled to under the law. We call that a bad idea.

Look, I understand that you're a little embarrassed that you attacked me over a reading error on your part, but attempting to project your mistake onto someone else is... well, adolescent. So is calling someone names on the internet. Of course, if you had a valid counterpoint you wouldn't have leapt on the first perceived (incorrectly in this case) error you saw and attempted to use it to support a flagrant ad hominem attack.

Also, I'm not convinced you understand what a straw man argument is given that it was you who used that particular fallacy when you attempted to back me into a logical corner based on your misreading of my statement and resultant false characterization of my argument. There's an important lesson here: you shouldn't use fallacies to strengthen your position, especially if you don't adequately understand them. It usually backfires.

Please don't try to run me up into a corner with shoddy logic, false criticisms, and outright personal insults. I'm not your typical uninformed internet scrub and those kinds of tactics aren't going to work with me. I'm not opposed to legitimate debate, but unless you're able to make valid, non-hostile arguments then I just have to write you off as another angry progressive who would rather bully his way through the issues than discuss them.

In theory communism works but the reality of it is that it doesn't work. Hmm why is that? Could it be that simple theories don't account for the non logical behavior of humans? Could it be that there are many factors involved other than a few variables?

So yes, in a vacuum a rise in labor costs would cause either higher unemployment and/or higher prices. The problem, of course, is that we don't live in a vacuum, the reality doesnt match the theory.

You can keep spouting theory all day but it has absolutely zero to do with reality.

Here is a meta study on the affects of raising minimum wage:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
(hint: most studies show no statistically important affects, there were some studies that did show a negative affect and some showed a positive affect).

If its basic economic knowledge, according to you, then why are there so many studies that don't support the theory?

It's a good thing you aren't my professor, then again they don't teach common sense as fact or a substitute for real science, so I doubt you would be teaching anyone anything.