Forums | MacLife

adndgamer wrote:

macnuke wrote:

Gr@sshopper wrote:

Neat guys. Can you show me any evidence of your claims? One thats often talked about, but I've never seen backed up. Does raising minimum wage actually lead to unemployment?

sure it does
it's why the third world provides so much for the US.
they will do it for less.
and those that won't do it for less... are unemployed

EDIT..
actually, that was a joke.
outsourcing doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the US job picture.

Outsourcing really doesn't affect the US job picture?  That's new to me... any links? I'm really actually curious.

I for one would definitely like for there to be less outsourcing of tech jobs.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/display … id=2454530

there are plenty if you do a google for Outsoucing Unemployment.
that one was my first hit tho

I don't understand how people can be so smurfing sold to a theory that they completely ignore reality. Where has wealth EVER trickled down by itself? Across the world, redistributive measures have been necessary to create a strong consumerist middle class.

The CEO of Walmart called for an increase in the minimum wage. Why? Because it would help business if low-income people had more purchasing power.

Every time there's an incremental raise in the minimum people cry out about how it'll wreck the economy and how there'll be mass unemployment. It never happens.

I don't think I can add much beyond what others have said in criticizing the minimum wage, except to note that it's not a simple "workers vs. employers" issue.  The minimum wage is as much a restriction upon workers as upon employers; it basically tells workers that it's illegal for them to work below a certain wage.

I'd think that we can all agree on at least two points:

1.  At some point, the minimum wage becomes so high that the unemployment it causes unquestionably outweighs the gain enjoyed by those who keep their jobs.  E.g., a $100/hour minimum wage would be a disaster for everyone.  The question is what that level is...$20/hour?  $10/hour?  $5/hour?  $1/hour?

2.  The first people to suffer unemployment will be those with the lowest skills, i.e., the people with the least valuable labor, i.e., the very people who most of all need help getting jobs.

That's why, IMO, the lower the minimum wage, the better.

charon wrote:

I don't think I can add much beyond what others have said in criticizing the minimum wage, except to note that it's not a simple "workers vs. employers" issue.  The minimum wage is as much a restriction upon workers as upon employers; it basically tells workers that it's illegal for them to work below a certain wage.

Odd that you never hear the actual working class complaining that it's illegal for them to make less money.

charon wrote:

On a slightly different note... Let's assume for the moment that the government should ensure that all people who work have enough of an income to support themselves.  OK, but why do this through the minimum wage?  That puts the burden solely upon the employer, which is neither fair--they had the decency to give the guy a job in the first place, why should they suffer a burden for doing so?--nor is it good for the worker, since it makes employing him more costly (see above).

So why not scrap the minimum wage and replace it with some sort of workfare program...have the government subsidize the wages of the poorest-paid workers?

That sounds suspiciously communist coming from you... I suspect you're trying to lead us into an absurdity.

Tallgeese wrote:

charon wrote:

I don't think I can add much beyond what others have said in criticizing the minimum wage, except to note that it's not a simple "workers vs. employers" issue.  The minimum wage is as much a restriction upon workers as upon employers; it basically tells workers that it's illegal for them to work below a certain wage.

Odd that you never hear the actual working class complaining that it's illegal for them to make less money.

Says who?

Supreme Court wrote:

In the second case the appellee, a woman 21 years of age, was employed by the Congress Hall Hotel Company as an elevator operator, at a salary of $35 per month and two meals a day. She alleges that the work was light and healthful, the hours short, with surroundings clean and moral, and that she was anxious to continue it for the compensation she was receiving, and that she did not earn more. Her services were satisfactory to the Hotel Company, and it would have been glad to retain her, but was obliged to dispense with her services by reason of the order of the board [imposing a minimum wage] and on account of the penalties prescribed by the act. The wages received by this appellee were the best she was able to obtain for any work she was capable of performing, and the enforcement of the order, she alleges, deprived her of such employment and wages.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)

They exist, I think we just tend not to see them.  That, and I'm sure a lot of workers, like the rest of the population, honestly believe that there's no connection between the minimum wage and unemployment.

Last edited by charon (2005-11-19 5:44 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

charon wrote:

On a slightly different note... Let's assume for the moment that the government should ensure that all people who work have enough of an income to support themselves.  OK, but why do this through the minimum wage?  That puts the burden solely upon the employer, which is neither fair--they had the decency to give the guy a job in the first place, why should they suffer a burden for doing so?--nor is it good for the worker, since it makes employing him more costly (see above).

So why not scrap the minimum wage and replace it with some sort of workfare program...have the government subsidize the wages of the poorest-paid workers?

That sounds suspiciously communist coming from you... I suspect you're trying to lead us into an absurdity.

It's less absurd than the minimum wage, IMO.

Tallgeese wrote:

[plays along] So where would the government money come from?

Same as everything else, I suppose.

Seriously, if we can expect to lay the entire burden upon employers, can't we also expect to generally spread the burden over the taxpaying public as a whole?  The only difference is how generally the burden is shared.

Tallgeese wrote:

So the public pays more in taxes and less on goods or more on goods and less in taxes...

And the minimum wage raises the price of goods (thus decreasing their purchase) by raising the cost of producing them.  There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Last edited by charon (2005-11-19 6:01 pm)

And we support corporate profit too?  I understand that the corporations are inportant to our lives, but should we be willing to support their profit margins (more than we are)?

My concern is that the poor have greater purchasing power, through whatever means are most effective.

Well for one, your statement that "the employer was good enough to hire them" is stupid since no business, whatever its intentions, can exist without workers.

Why isn't in the best interest of employers to maximize worker buying power?