Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing...

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: stinkz
Let's raise it to $15 dollars an hour, then all poor people win! Oh wait....

pfff $15??

$200 per hour we'd all be millonaires stupid! 🙂

This is called a strawman, I'm glad you approve.

This is not a strawman argument at all. There is not difference between artifically setting wages at $5, $15 or $200 an hour.

In a world with no pre-existing wage level and real currency value, this would be true.

In the world we live in, it is not.

Ob that we will have to disagree. Artically increasing minimum wage is going to have negative effects and the more you increase the more negative it will be.

And for a large increase I would completely agree with you; economic instability, bankruptcies and inflation would decimate the economy (I think doubling the minimum wage could easily produce a real 10% fall-off in the economy, year over year).

But for smaller increases, the historical indicators don't really support the anti-minimum-wage arguments.

Where I live, (Ontario) there used to be two minimum wages (plus service-industry minimums which were very low doue to the expectation of receiving tips). One was for students under 18 years of age, and it was substantially (at least 10% IIRC) lower than the adult minimum wage.

I think a better argument than 'general inflation' would be based on housing costs, because sh1tty rental housing is the only market that belongs almost exclusively to low-income earners. You could easily see some or all of the gains from a minimum wage increase inflated away in increased rents for this type of housing, a relatively 'closed' market, given any sort of shortage of such housing whatsoever, whereas food and clothing (even cheap food and clothing), for example are not markets where the poor participate exclusively and noticeable inflation would be less likely in those markets.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: stinkz
Let's raise it to $15 dollars an hour, then all poor people win! Oh wait....

pfff $15??

$200 per hour we'd all be millonaires stupid! 🙂

This is called a strawman, I'm glad you approve.

Then tell me what minimum wage should be...
Just asking for a number.

Roll a 6 sided die, and multiply by 2.

The number under discussion would probably fall just about exclusively in the 'willingness to pay' region, produce little or no additional unemployment, and have a small beneficial effect.

I would think, for starters, that minimum wage considerations would include the average productivity of minimum-wage workers, and probably would be better set state-to-state or even county-to-county than at a national level.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: stinkz
Let's raise it to $15 dollars an hour, then all poor people win! Oh wait....

pfff $15??

$200 per hour we'd all be millonaires stupid! 🙂

This is called a strawman, I'm glad you approve.

Then tell me what minimum wage should be...
Just asking for a number.

Roll a 6 sided die, and multiply by 2.

The number under discussion would probably fall just about exclusively in the 'willingness to pay' region, produce little or no additional unemployment, and have a small beneficial effect.

I would think, for starters, that minimum wage considerations would include the average productivity of minimum-wage workers, and probably would be better set state-to-state or even county-to-county than at a national level.

However we are already at that point. Less than 2% of the population make minimum wage, so the market by and large is setting base wages. About 50% of those still live their parents and big chunk of the rest work for minimum wage+tips.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison
However we are already at that point. Less than 2% of the population make minimum wage, so the market by and large is setting base wages. About 50% of those still live their parents and big chunk of the rest work for minimum wage+tips.

<2% is a lot smaller than the ~5% thrown about earlier in this thread (not by me).

If most of the people making minimum wage are students, I would be more supportive of safety legislation/education than minimum wage increases. I know the job I worked when I was 15 involved more danger than I would ever accept now, especially given the low pay and lousy safety considerations. Imagine the cost to me and/or society if working an unsafe job when I was 15 cost me a lifetime of my full earning potential😛

 

[1EZduzit]

Even if it only affects 2%, once they get a raise then that helps out all the other people in low paying jobs. I think it would be nice for them to get a raise, it has been a while, 8 or 9 years?

Ask yourself, what were you making back then?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: charrison
However we are already at that point. Less than 2% of the population make minimum wage, so the market by and large is setting base wages. About 50% of those still live their parents and big chunk of the rest work for minimum wage+tips.

<2% is a lot smaller than the ~5% thrown about earlier in this thread (not by me).

If most of the people making minimum wage are students, I would be more supportive of safety legislation/education than minimum wage increases. I know the job I worked when I was 15 involved more danger than I would ever accept now, especially given the low pay and lousy safety considerations. Imagine the cost to me and/or society if working an unsafe job when I was 15 cost me a lifetime of my full earning potential😛

5% was for Canada...
less than 2% is charrison's number; I wouldn't be surprised by the statistic.

 

[Dissipate]

What You Need to Know About the Minimum Wage

/thread

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The extra money comes from the range between market wage and 'willingness to pay'. When you think about it, your $1/hr argument, while 'clever' is not very valid; an employee who could really command a maximum wage of only $1 would simply never be hired because their potential to cause damage would be too great given their obvious incompetence.

Then why are there plenty of people in 3rd world countries making $1 an hour? Who are you to say that nobody can be hired at $1 an hour?

There is no range between market wage and 'willingness to pay.' The market wage is the willingness to pay. If we increase the price of shoes will there be fewer shoes sold? If we increase the price of oranges or apples will there be fewer apples or oranges sold? etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the most well established laws of economics of all time. Increase the price and the number of people purchasing that good automatically goes down. Labor is no exception.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The extra money comes from the range between market wage and 'willingness to pay'. When you think about it, your $1/hr argument, while 'clever' is not very valid; an employee who could really command a maximum wage of only $1 would simply never be hired because their potential to cause damage would be too great given their obvious incompetence.

Then why are there plenty of people in 3rd world countries making $1 an hour? Who are you to say that nobody can be hired at $1 an hour?

There is no range between market wage and 'willingness to pay.' The market wage is the willingness to pay. If we increase the price of shoes will there be fewer shoes sold? If we increase the price of oranges or apples will there be fewer apples or oranges sold? etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the most well established laws of economics of all time. Increase the price and the number of people purchasing that good automatically goes down. Labor is no exception.

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What You Need to Know About the Minimum Wage

/thread

Speaking of opposing bad policy for the wrong reason; I already gave my criticisms of minimum wage laws closer to the beginning of this thread, then started dealing with a whole bunch of the usual drivel from people who think they are libertarians, but aren't (except charrison who as usual makes sense even if I disagree).

For example: There is historically no appreciable effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment; so while a very simple market model suggests that minimum wages cause unemployment, this does not appear to be the case in the real world.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

Consumer and producer surplus? My bullsh!t meter just went nuts.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

Consumer and producer surplus? My bullsh!t meter just went nuts.

When you buy two of something, and would only buy one if the price was higher, the value of the second one is somewhere close to the [i[price[/i] of the second one. This means the value-to-you of the first one is somewhat greater than the price; this extra value is your surplus for the transaction.

It's hardly a controversial phenomenon. Like I said, look it up.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The extra money comes from the range between market wage and 'willingness to pay'. When you think about it, your $1/hr argument, while 'clever' is not very valid; an employee who could really command a maximum wage of only $1 would simply never be hired because their potential to cause damage would be too great given their obvious incompetence.

Then why are there plenty of people in 3rd world countries making $1 an hour? Who are you to say that nobody can be hired at $1 an hour?

There is no range between market wage and 'willingness to pay.' The market wage is the willingness to pay. If we increase the price of shoes will there be fewer shoes sold? If we increase the price of oranges or apples will there be fewer apples or oranges sold? etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the most well established laws of economics of all time. Increase the price and the number of people purchasing that good automatically goes down. Labor is no exception.

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The extra money comes from the range between market wage and 'willingness to pay'. When you think about it, your $1/hr argument, while 'clever' is not very valid; an employee who could really command a maximum wage of only $1 would simply never be hired because their potential to cause damage would be too great given their obvious incompetence.

Then why are there plenty of people in 3rd world countries making $1 an hour? Who are you to say that nobody can be hired at $1 an hour?

There is no range between market wage and 'willingness to pay.' The market wage is the willingness to pay. If we increase the price of shoes will there be fewer shoes sold? If we increase the price of oranges or apples will there be fewer apples or oranges sold? etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the most well established laws of economics of all time. Increase the price and the number of people purchasing that good automatically goes down. Labor is no exception.

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

Consumer and producer surplus? My bullsh!t meter just went nuts.

When you buy two of something, and would only buy one if the price was higher, the value of the second one is somewhere close to the [i[price[/i] of the second one. This means the value-to-you of the first one is somewhat greater than the price; this extra value is your surplus for the transaction.

It's hardly a controversial phenomenon. Like I said, look it up.

That 'surplus' is marginal. Increase the price above that margin and they won't buy. Like I said before, increase the price and watch the number of units sold go down.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

This is quite simply not true. Or rather is stated too simply to capture any significant truth.

I told you to look up wilingness to pay, you might try 'consumer and producer surplus' and some other relevant bits while you're at it.

Consumer and producer surplus? My bullsh!t meter just went nuts.

When you buy two of something, and would only buy one if the price was higher, the value of the second one is somewhere close to the [i[price[/i] of the second one. This means the value-to-you of the first one is somewhat greater than the price; this extra value is your surplus for the transaction.

It's hardly a controversial phenomenon. Like I said, look it up.

That 'surplus' is marginal. Increase the price above that margin and they won't buy. Like I said before, increase the price and watch the number of units sold go down.

Read it again - then apply some real world thinking about the costs of hiring a new employee into a business 'planned' for the current number; it's often highly cost-prohibitive, and means many businesses operate below marginal-output = wage-rate due to startup costs of hiring more employees.

This is kind of like 'sticky prices' and explains why small to moderate minimum wage rate changes produce little or no increased unemployment.

The surplus isn't marginal except in the sense that you don't buy any additional units once the marginal surplus is less than zero.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

I'm not sure you quite get what surplus means, it isn't the same as profit; what you are talking about is built into expectations. You wouldn't hire someone if it wasn't profitable, but you would if they met your minimum requirements for generating profit.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

I'm not sure you quite get what surplus means, it isn't the same as profit; what you are talking about is built into expectations. You wouldn't hire someone if it wasn't profitable, but you would if they met your minimum requirements for generating profit.

My point exactly. Those requirements shift around, and if you don't surpass those requirements by a set margin you'll probably not get hired.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

I'm not sure you quite get what surplus means, it isn't the same as profit; what you are talking about is built into expectations. You wouldn't hire someone if it wasn't profitable, but you would if they met your minimum requirements for generating profit.

My point exactly. Those requirements shift around, and if you don't surpass those requirements by a set margin you'll probably not get hired.

You still aren't grasping what surplus means though. It's not the same as profit.

 

[delas52]

🙂 Yes needs to be raised 🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: delas52
🙂 Yes needs to be raised 🙂

Simply because it makes you feel good is insufficient reasoning. In fact, that would be all the reason not to do it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

Yep, just like people get old and you feel they should be killed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
You assume producers are willing to readily give up their surplus.

The do so based on the same principle that makes consumers do so when the cable company gets a protected monopoly and raises prices; surplus is excess value, you can reduce it to zero and the transaction still occurs.

Most businesses are planned for a certain number of employees and changing that number has costs; this further reduces the effect of minimum wage changes on unemployment as many businesses are not operating at a level where the marginal productivity of an employee is roughly equal to their wage, because of the fixed costs of adding said employee.

Once again I refer you to the beginning of the thread and repeat that minimum wages are not a favorite policy tool of mine, but you have to attack bad policy for the right reasons.

The nature of workers, unlike cable TV and machines in general, is that their productivity and output fluctuates. No firm will hire a worker at 0 or close to 0 surplus and take the risk that it could become negative in the future.

Yep, just like people get old and you feel they should be killed.

And you're afraid of getting old and dying and think your great god government (funded by other people's money, of course) should make you live forever. We get it. You're too deluded to understand that every person's life ends in tragedy. You bring up little singular examples of tragedy thinking you prove your point while the rest of us just sigh at your idiotic state of denial. Tragedy awaits us all. No one is spared. Grit your teeth and get used to it. It's inevitable. Your god won't save you (or anyone) any more than the Christian god will save them.


edit: and your sig... :roll: YOU calling Zendari a troll. That's the ultimate in pot calling the kettle black.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: delas52
🙂 Yes needs to be raised 🙂

Simply because it makes you feel good is insufficient reasoning. In fact, that would be all the reason not to do it.

LOL, where did he say what his reasoning was?? Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. If it makes me feel good, then I guess I will just have to live with it.