• We are currently experiencing delays with our email service, which may affect logins and notifications. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve the issue.

We should be raising the minimum wage according to most economists

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
It is basic economics 101.

When the minimum wage was first enacted in the US there was a significant growth in the economy. Do your homework and look it up folks.

Here are a few things you need to consider:

Minimum wage increases put money in the pockets of low-wage workers who have little choice but to spend that money immediately in their local communities. Research has shown that raising the minimum wage boosts consumer spending, increasing the demand that drives economic growth.

A 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank finds that minimum wage increases raise incomes and increase consumer spending, especially triggering car purchases. The authors examine 23 years of household spending data and find that for every dollar increase for a minimum wage worker results in $2,800 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year.

A 2009 study by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that Obama’s campaign pledge to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 would inject $60 billion in additional spending into the economy.

When the federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938 at the height of the Great Depression, its twin goals were maintaining a wage floor to keep workers out of poverty, and stimulating the consumer spending necessary for economic recovery. President Franklin Roosevelt called for its enactment as “an essential part of economic recovery,” explaining that by increasing the purchasing power of those workers “who have the least of it today, the purchasing power of the Nation as a whole – can be still further increased, (and) other happy results will flow from such an increase.”

Another widely cited study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger found that a higher minimum wage can boost job creation for low-skilled professions, while the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recently reported an increase could help reduce, however minutely, the rate of income inequality in the U.S. by pushing up the incomes of the poor.

That could even fortify the economy, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, which reports that, for every $1 increase in the minimum wage, spending by households with minimum wage workers increased by $700 per quarter.

The state of Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country at $9.19 an hour. Nineteen states have a minimum wage higher than the federal level, while four have set it below the $7.25 federal standard. Georgia and Wyoming currently have the lowest minimum wages, at $5.15 per hour.

The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed countries, according to the International Labor Organization’s most recent Global Wage Report. With a minimum wage at below 40 percent of the average salary, only Japan and Spain pay their lowest-rung workers less.

Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation,would be one step toward easing the burden on the working poor, according to the Obama administration. But top Republicans, such as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio, have already clearly expressed their opposition to the plan, relying on the age-old argument that businesses will hire less if they are forced to pay more – even an extra $1.75 per hour. *This is incorrect, outdated ideas, and proven wrong by most economists.

History, however, indicates otherwise. While some studies, such as a 2010 report in the Review of Economics and Statistics, found “no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States,” those wage increases still benefit those who are currently employed. For instance, the Center for American Progress reports a small pay bump could ultimately pay for itself by boosting worker productivity and reducing turnover and vacancies.

“Economists have evaluated the impact of minimum wage increases practically since the inception of the wage floor in the 1930s. At this point, it is fair to say that the debate over the purported job-loss effect is a debate over whether this effect is slightly below zero, or at zero,” reported the Economic Policy Institute back in 1999, when Congress was debating raising the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour.

Links: http://www.ibtimes.com/no-raising-minimum-wage-will-not-lead-massive-job-losses-1083496

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

It's real simple if people have more disposable income they are then able to spend more which goes straight into companies/corporations businesses, thus a demand for goods and services is created and then these companies/corporations start hiring.

When people have less disposable income, they don't spend, and businesses suffer due to profit loss, then start laying off people.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,664
9,966
136
Minimum Wage is the least egregious version of tax and spend. If you're going to do it, this is the way.

It doesn't channel money into corrupt pockets like the alternatives.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Just drives up inflation. If one is getting paid above the existing min wage and the I crease ex refs the difference, do you bring that worker to min wage level (raise) or higher keeping the value level.

That value level works it's way up the employee chain, driving up costs that are the passed onto the consumer.

So tben, the increase can exceed the increase from min wage forcing at the bottom.

Who loses out.

Not the business. They either become more efficient to absorb the costs, dump a worker to balance the extra costs(working exuding ones more) or pass costs along.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
A few thoughts here. First, what is the magic number for minimum wage to actually make working a step up financially from complete welfare reliance?
Second, on the study that quotes a figure of $2800 per year spent into the economy, what is the real NET figure, as the cost to pay the extra $2800 to the employee will be passed, by the employer, down the line with a tendency to grow at each middle-man along the way. This, in turn creates an unfair burden on people making more than minimum wage as their pay is unlikely to raise despite the increased costs for goods/services impacted by the minimum wage increase.
Finally, as Jaskalas pointed out, a minimum wage increase puts 'help from the government' directly into the hands of the people without bills or committees appropriating or misusing the funds. I think that weaning OFF assistance could/should be facilitated by this.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
$25/hour suddenly poverty is eliminated, a working wage.. Everyone can be middle class. Hell let's make it $100/hour and make everyone wealthy, then raise their taxes even more. Win/win
I just solved our country's entire budget problem. Yay me!
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
So what should minimum wage be?

Something like

(Annual basic living expenses + cost of skills training and education)/2080

After taxes.

Edit: Actually loans could probably take care of the education & training costs.

Anyway, at the the current rate of $7.25 that's $15,080 for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, before taxes, or just below the poverty line for a single parent with one child. The current rate at best perpetuates poverty and the strain on our safety net programs.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Cost of living differs by geographic area. A few states already have mandated higher min wages.

Min wage for Hawaii should not apply to Mississippi.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Something like

(Annual basic living expenses + cost of skills training and education)/2080

After taxes.

Edit: Actually loans could probably take care of the education & training costs.

It seems like you have the same basic Idea I had

Federal Poverty line: $11,170

(11,170 * 125%) / (35hr/week * 50week/yr) = $7.98/hr
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Just drives up inflation. If one is getting paid above the existing min wage and the I crease ex refs the difference, do you bring that worker to min wage level (raise) or higher keeping the value level.

That value level works it's way up the employee chain, driving up costs that are the passed onto the consumer.

So tben, the increase can exceed the increase from min wage forcing at the bottom.

Who loses out.

Not the business. They either become more efficient to absorb the costs, dump a worker to balance the extra costs(working exuding ones more) or pass costs along.

Those who have yet to enter the market place for employment lose out as the bar to gain employment is raised.

Minimum wage in effect is a price floor where you end up with a surplus and that surplus is excess labor consisting of individuals who once were able to enter the market place for employment at a lower rate because their costs justified the benefits they brought to an employer at the previous set minimum wage scale but once that scale is raised you raise the entry barrier for those who are not worth the cost of employment at the new minimum scale.

So while the article may reference positions which seek to display how current workers may see improvements it doesn't really address the issue of those individuals whose value of employment is less than (significantly or not) below that at $9 an hour.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
It seems like you have the same basic Idea I had

Federal Poverty line: $11,170

(11,170 * 125%) / (35hr/week * 50week/yr) = $7.98/hr

No, the poverty line is not "basic living expenses," it's the poverty level. See my math back in my post I apparently took too long editing.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
Something like

(Annual basic living expenses + cost of skills training and education)/2080

After taxes.

Edit: Actually loans could probably take care of the education & training costs.

Your formula is probably 100% accurate. The only problem is the definition of 'basic living expenses'. Utilities are a no-brainer of course, but what about things like satellite tv packages, cell plans, level of car expense, etc? We don't actually need any of those things, and without them we're still better off than most of the world.
Learning how to budget to buy things like new tvs and better cars goes a LONG way toward teaching the value of a dollar. It also motivates people to seek training and education when they realize their value as an employee affects their pay, and their skills affect their value as an employee.
THIS puts real money into the economy, having skilled workers to fill a need at a certain, higher wage while avoiding the deleterious effect that comes from increasing pay without an equal increase in the skill you're hiring.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No, the poverty line is not "basic living expenses," it's the poverty level. See my math back in my post I apparently took too long editing.

The poverty line is suppose to signify "basic living expenses". To account for the possibility of it being too low I then adjusted at to 125% of the poverty line.

Anyway, at the the current rate of $7.25 that's $15,080 for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, before taxes, or just below the poverty line for a single parent with one child. The current rate at best perpetuates poverty and the strain on our safety net programs.

Since when does a child count as a "basic living expense"? Minimum wage should be for people just starting out with no job skills... ie high school kids.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Minimum Wage is the least egregious version of tax and spend. If you're going to do it, this is the way.

It doesn't channel money into corrupt pockets like the alternatives.

More or less this; low income folk are least likely to save/invest said money, so it will hit the output right away and It's probably more efficient than having the gov't decide what to spend it on.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Yeah I don't get the raising minimum wage thing. Sounds good to the ear but when you think about it any gains for minimum wage workers is reduced over time. Like a dog chasing his tail. Obama mentioned something about locking wages to cost of living. I see that as no different. Thats my take.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,794
568
126
Most economists are WRONG!

Obviously the case is that taxes have not been cut low enough for a long enough time on the wealthy for them to feel enough certainty to start hiring again... :colbert:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
More or less this; low income folk are least likely to save/invest said money, so it will hit the output right away and It's probably more efficient than having the gov't decide what to spend it on.

Burger flippers can raise prices faster that min wage workers earn it.

They can so ask workers to work 10% more to cover for one less worker if competition will not allow prices to go up.
 

frowertr

Golden Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,372
41
91
Forcing higher minimum wages only gives employers more reason to dump the extra employee and work the remaining harder/more.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,472
16,931
136
Forcing higher minimum wages only gives employers more reason to dump the extra employee and work the remaining harder/more.

Why would they not do that already?

Minimum wage increases increase the costs to consumers by a very small amout. Something like a 10% raise equates to about .01 cents on a $100 purchase.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Forcing higher minimum wages only gives employers more reason to dump the extra employee and work the remaining harder/more.

Or forces them to do so. Contrary to what some people here believe, a lot of employers aren't out to get you and actually care about their employees. Raising minimum wage can mean that it forces employers to have to reduce the workforce to still pay for everything. Not all the time, no, but it can (and does) happen. I know someone who that happened to.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
Why would they not do that already?

Minimum wage increases increase the costs to consumers by a very small amout. Something like a 10% raise equates to about .01 cents on a $100 purchase.

That seems odd. $100 is 10000 cents, and those numbers claim that %10 of the employees wage only accounts for .01 cents. It's hard to believe that the labour portion of a good or service only accounts for 1/100000 the total cost. Could you try to find where you're remembering those numbers from? I'd be interested in the details behind those number. Thanks in advance.