Interesting… I do not mind a minimum wage hike but $15/hour, gtfo! If fast food wages go up to $15 an hour do other jobs go up as well? For instance, some job that gets paid $12 an hour go up to $19 pr what?
‘Super size my wage!’[/quote]
Some do, some don’t. Minimum wage going up tends to hit the lower middle class more than anybody. Wages in general tend to get re adjusted, and jobs that were overpaid tend to even out, and sometimes the minimum wage jobs get a slightly higher class of people… until inflation catches up
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Any fast food place always has people applying… constantly. There is no end to people who want to work there. But anyone there is easily replaceable and the turnover is fairly high.
Autoworkers… definitely a higher skill set and the UAW protected their jobs for a long time. They’ve lost some of their bite in recent years. But the ripple effect of an autoworker’s strike is vast. From the mines where the steel comes from to the showroom floor, they all take a hit. If a fastfood place went on strike, who would really care? Just go across the street to another place not on strike. [/quote]
Keep in mind also that most fast food restaurants are franchises, so organized workers would not be negotiating with the corporation, but with the owners of the franchise as that is their legal employer. These are very frequently locally owned and ownership usually has relatively few stores. Big labor is currently pushing to change this.[/quote]
There are a lot of smaller privately-owned businesses in NYC that have unionized workers. My FIL had a drug store in Brooklyn he bought from someone else… he was stuck with the union workers and some of them were hard to get rid of.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
I saw this at a McDonald’s in Midland. Starting pay is $10 and then goes up to $15 after 60 days (because of huge turn over) for a high school kid.
What’s the difference between West Texas/Eastern New Mexico and NYC? The government stays out of the way and supply and demand takes over.
A HS grad not on drugs in the oilfield makes an easy $100K after a year or two. Often housing, work clothes/boots, and 3 meals are provided.
Just work like a fucking dog.
No crooked unions stealing your money. Just supply and demand.[/quote]
To be fair, it’s kind of hard to compare Midland to any other place in the country right now, save some other parts of Texas or North Dakota. Of course I agree with you that keeping the government limited in those areas is best, but just about anything would work in those places right now. You can’t ignore the influence that vast amounts of natural resources can have on an area. Just take a look at the socialism in the Scandinavian countries and their success, although demographics surely come in to play there as well.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
There are a lot of smaller privately-owned businesses in NYC that have unionized workers. My FIL had a drug store in Brooklyn he bought from someone else… he was stuck with the union workers and some of them were hard to get rid of.[/quote]
Sure, they still have the legal right to form a union. It’s just not near as common and employees of small business owners (which the franchises usually are) are historically far less likely to organize or draw the backing of any of the large unions.
Why is it always fast food workers that are on the front lines of this? They’re not the only field to have minimum wage workers, I never understood that.
Government, almost entirely on their own, creates some fucked up catastrophe like the Great Recession of the late 2000’s.
They bail out everyone responsible, but create no answer or even method of reimbursement for the people who actually get fucked over.
Play the blame game to take attention off of the real problem. To then, trick the American people into voting just another puppet into office.
Vote and pass a bill that, regardless of it’s benefits, forces corporations and companies a like to either whittle down employee’s hours from full-time to a Company beneficial part time, or just stops hiring/start firing.
Then they let natural selection take over which in turn creates a basically barren economy(created from all 4 points above), forcing People who once were full time employees at respectable positions to take less than reasonable full-time/part-time positions at a fraction of their (glory days) wage. In turn forcing people who should be working in those positions to take what’s left…(shit rolls down hill)
THEN ramps up the blame game to benefit their political beliefs of either raising or not raising the minimum wage, that now affects more people because of the bullshit from points1-4 that THEY created…
Henry Hazlitt was an Austrian economist (free market) who believed wages should only rise if productivity rises. Productivity has risen and wages have stayed stagnant or even declined. Where did all the extra money go from the increased productivity?
I believe Switzerland votes soon on an increase of their minimum wage which would place it around $22-$25 per hour.
What would minimum wage be if wages kept pace with productivity?
Seattle just passed a $15 minimum wage to be phased in over the course of the coming years. I believe the final increase occurs by 2017, however I could be wrong on the year. Is it the contention of the majority of the posters here that the Seattle economy will be destroyed by this increase?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it the contention of the majority of the posters here that the Seattle economy will be destroyed by this increase?[/quote]
I doubt very seriously any of the posters here believe Seattle’s economy will be “destroyed” by this change.
I believe most will expect Seattle’s economy to contract. Not to mention other economies (MD for example) are making similar changes. Ultimately this will, in my opinion, adversely affect the U.S. economy as a whole.
The minimum wage purports to help the poor and unskilled, but really it’s the most unskilled and thus the most vulnerable that it fucks over the most. What people with few skills need is an opportunity to work and gain experience, thus making themselves more marketable and moving up the food chain. The minimum wage disincentivizes (is that a word? should be) hiring such people.
Regardless of price controls - which the minimum wage is a textbook definition of - a skillset has a certain price that supply and demand determine. Thus, the guy with a skillset that the market determines is worth $15 an hour is at a distinct advantage over someone whose skillset is worth less, but for whom the government has disallowed him to work for less.
If you are the guy with skills worth <$15/hour, how else are you supposed to compete with better-skilled individuals other than on the basis of price? It’s embarrassing the level of primitive thought process that goes into most dialogue around this issue when we’re talking about basic concepts of economics.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Henry Hazlitt was an Austrian economist (free market) who believed wages should only rise if productivity rises. Productivity has risen and wages have stayed stagnant or even declined. Where did all the extra money go from the increased productivity?
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it the contention of the majority of the posters here that the Seattle economy will be destroyed by this increase?[/quote]
I doubt very seriously any of the posters here believe Seattle’s economy will be “destroyed” by this change.
I believe most will expect Seattle’s economy to contract. Not to mention other economies (MD for example) are making similar changes. Ultimately this will, in my opinion, adversely affect the U.S. economy as a whole.[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Henry Hazlitt was an Austrian economist (free market) who believed wages should only rise if productivity rises. Productivity has risen and wages have stayed stagnant or even declined. Where did all the extra money go from the increased productivity?
[/quote]
While the threads main thrust is a minimum wage increase, my post dealt with productivity. Hazlitt “There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.”
Where is the evidence this happens? Or should we just believe it cause Hazlitt says so and he is an economics hero?
Hazlitt again “The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise labor productivity” As I have posted productivity has risen but wages have not. What would Hazlitt have to say about this?
More from Hazlitt “The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid. Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.” But this hasn’t happened for a long time. Why? If Hazlitt was being philosophically consistent he would be behind the labor movement for wages being tied to productivity. If the employers do not want to do this voluntarily then they ought to be forced. And if not by the government then who? My wish is that employees form more co-ops and leave their employers in the dust.
Let me paraphrase your post, "You should listen to Hazlitt when it comes to wages and productivity because I can twist that to make it seems like he thinks the minimum wage should go up. However, you should ignore what he has to say specifically about the minimum wage because it does not agree with my stance.
I see that usmc beat me to the best response to your post, Zeppelin.
It is obvious that a minimum wage will increase unemployment, unless that minimum wage is less than the price set by the market(e.g. a minimum wage of $10/hour is established for doctors), or force is employed(i.e. some people are enslaved by others).
Those responsible for increases in productivity are rewarded. If a man invents a machine that can be operated by one person pushing a button and that does the work of ten men doing skilled work, then he will be rewarded handsomely. However, that button pusher, who can be replaced by almost anyone on Earth, may make less money than even a single one of the men whose labor was replaced by the machine.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let me paraphrase your post, "You should listen to Hazlitt when it comes to wages and productivity because I can twist that to make it seems like he thinks the minimum wage should go up. However, you should ignore what he has to say specifically about the minimum wage because it does not agree with my stance.
As inconsistent as ever.[/quote]
I still haven’t figured out the red bouncing ball feature, too bad then maybe you could follow along.
Where is the proof that an increase in the minimum wage slows an economy? Should I just believe him cause he said so?
I never said that he believes the minimum wage should increase only that he believed that productivity should raise workers wages. His words not mine. Productivity has risen considerably but wages have stagnated or even declined. What do you think he would say about that fact?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I see that usmc beat me to the best response to your post, Zeppelin.
It is obvious that a minimum wage will increase unemployment, unless that minimum wage is less than the price set by the market(e.g. a minimum wage of $10/hour is established for doctors), or force is employed(i.e. some people are enslaved by others).
Those responsible for increases in productivity are rewarded. If a man invents a machine that can be operated by one person pushing a button and that does the work of ten men doing skilled work, then he will be rewarded handsomely. However, that button pusher, who can be replaced by almost anyone on Earth, may make less money than even a single one of the men whose labor was replaced by the machine.[/quote]
Is it your contention that all of the increase in productivity is due to technology? Increased productivity has very little to do with industriousness of the worker or more education?
Also an increase in minimum wage is bad for an economy? Where are the studies, evidence that confirms this theory? Or should I just believe it cause it conforms to an ideology?
