[Lemmy]

Why is it, do you suppose, that economists across the political spectrum overwhelmingly reject minimum wage legislation? Sure, we could be wrong. But we're less likely to be wrong than any group that could be consulted on the issue, no?

Minimum wage laws are a net detriment to society. Minimum wage laws are most detrimental to unskilled labour. Those are facts.

[DanSC]

Facts have no place in politics when emotions are so readily available.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Minimum wage laws are most detrimental to unskilled labour.

How so?

[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How so?

By: 1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);
2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");
3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;
4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;
5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively;
7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);
9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;
10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Jesus, I could run this list up to 100 without a whole lot more thought, but I think I'd need Khar to type it all up for me.

[Thanos]

Any truth, with the number of middle-class jobs that the minimum wagers used to transition into rapidly diminishing, that beefing up minimum wage pay and benefits is one of the few ways left to avoid a collapse in social mobility?

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How so?

By: 1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);
2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");
3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;
4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;
5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively;
7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);
9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;
10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Jesus, I could run this list up to 100 without a whole lot more thought, but I think I'd need Khar to type it all up for me.

But couldn't most of those arguments apply to any labour legislation? What's to stop companies from paying their employees nothing at all? In a tight job market, companies will offer to pay room and board and slowly put workers in debt.

Sorry, I can't see it. You roll back labour legislation like minimumway, and you're on your way back to the sweatshops of 100 years ago. What would prevent that?

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How so?

By: 1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);
2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");
3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;
4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;
5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively;
7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);
9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;
10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Jesus, I could run this list up to 100 without a whole lot more thought, but I think I'd need Khar to type it all up for me.

+5 if I could

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How so?

By: 1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);
2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");
3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;
4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;
5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively;
7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);
9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;
10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Jesus, I could run this list up to 100 without a whole lot more thought, but I think I'd need Khar to type it all up for me.

But couldn't most of those arguments apply to any labour legislation? What's to stop companies from paying their employees nothing at all? In a tight job market, companies will offer to pay room and board and slowly put workers in debt.

]

Competition of employers for working spaces.

Imagine how many places would open up if employers could reduce the minimum wage
from 12 to 7 dollars an hour. Employers would then have to compete amongst each
other for people, and better workers would be offered more money.
You can see in many towns the minimum wage doesn't apply where there are lots
of jobs and few people.

$1:

Sorry, I can't see it. You roll back labour legislation like minimumway, and you're on your way back to the sweatshops of 100 years ago. What would prevent that?

Our economy has changed quite a bit from those times, much more dynamic and
free moving. It is very easy now to change your job when your boss pays you nothing,
as you think all businessmen are evil bastards, as opposed to 100 years ago
when the next village was too far to walk.

[BeaverFever]

Jeez, you make it sound like minimum wage is $50 bucks an hour or something. People on minimum wage are not coasting on easy street.

$1:

1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);

Fair enough in theour I suppose - assuming the employer has enough work to hire as many people as he can afford - but there are human concerns outside of "economic" concerns (not sure I buy that all economic schools believe this - doesn't sound very Keynesian for example). Also, you could say the legal requirement to pay an employee at all reduces the number of jobs ("I'll hire 1000 employees at $0/hr but only 3 at $1/hr")

$1:

2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");

This sounds like a total supposition. I mean who are you talking about, the mentally handicapped? Minimum wage is already the most unskilled you can get - those people don't have any skills, which is why they can only get min wage. For example, standing on a street corner handing out flyers. The people who are not "skilled" enough to get those jobs, probably aren't employable at any dollar amount. I don't think a druggie who disappears for days at a time would be incented to partake in regular full-time work if only he could compete a sub-min wage job. That's basically the labour market at that rate. Also you don't discuss that there is a floor to the economic incentive for work. Why would a beggar toil away at a menial job and get bossed around for 8 hours a day if he still has to go out and beg afterwards?

$1:

3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;

Only a right-winger would consider minimum wage an "over-reward" and assume people on minimum wage have no incentive to improve their lot in life. As in #2 above, this seems to assume that employers would rather hire less skilled workers but are settling for more skilled workers, which I don't think is the case since the lessers-skilled are pretty much criminals, druggies, and mentally handicapped.

$1:

4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;

True, but you could say that about any law, or slavery for that matter. We all have our burdens to bear to make the world work.

$1:

5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;

Is this just a repetition of point #1 dressed up for the "ethnic vote"? Also note immigrants are higher educated and better skilled than those born in Canada; their problem is that their credentials are not recognized. So I don't think abolishing the minumum wage opens any doors for the Pakistani Chemical Engineer that delivers my pizzas.

$1:

6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively

This is basically point 3 repeated. And you can't possibly be suggesting that the least unskilled minimum wage workers would be opening their own business if only they made less????

$1:

7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;

Point 1 and 5 redux, dressed up for feminist vote. Also working women with children probably don't feel burdened by whatever extra money minimum wage gets them

$1:

8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);

I don't see that changing - for examples, employers won't give their employees 2-hour lunchbreaks just because they can hire twice the workforce for the same cost. Instead, they'll just work the extra people just as hard as they work their current workforce.

$1:

9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;

For those who get their rocks off resenting the working poor, that's not going to go away, regardless of the pay scale. IMO, the problem is with the resenter, not the resentee

$1:

10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Maybe, but you could say that about any entry-level job...or entrepreneurship for that matter. Again, minimum wage isn't much to begin with, so I doubt there are many univerity-bound students with good grades who opt to be a life-long 7-11 clerk. More likely in that scenario the young 7-11 clerk works his way up to manager and gets used to having money in his pocket and feels he can't afford to stop working. Also, as stated in #1, by diminishing the economic reward for work, you may end up poisoing youth against the concept of work.

$1:

Jesus, I could run this list...

I don't think Jesus would agree.

[andyt]

It's not just about min wage, but about low wages. I posted before that 20% of BC's workforce makes $12 or less. That's a lot of people earning dick all. There's no way that those people are all going to move up the ladder, if only they were deprived enough in their wages to be truly miserable. Earning $10.25 min wage is pretty miserable - what can you afford on it?

We're doing very poorly in Canada with working poverty - only the US is worse. Other countries manage to have much less of it, and it's to their benefit. The social costs of poverty are much lower. If min wages aren't the way to go, then find another way to eliminate this working poverty - it's a blight on our society. Funny how many people on this forum complain about inequality, but not for the most unequal people at the bottom. Fuck them.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Competition of employers for working spaces.

Imagine how many places would open up if employers could reduce the minimum wage
from 12 to 7 dollars an hour. Employers would then have to compete amongst each
other for people, and better workers would be offered more money.
You can see in many towns the minimum wage doesn't apply where there are lots
of jobs and few people.

Baloney. Employers are not going to hire extra people to stand around and do nothing just because workers are more affordable. If there's more profit to be had by increasing productivity and hiring another worker, they'll do it because the extra wages will be paid for by the additional profits from the added production of that worker.

$1:

It is very easy now to change your job when your boss pays you nothing,

The "low end" labour market, however you want to call it, is going to level off a certain wage...it'll just be the unofficial minimum wage. Also, employers collude...it's not a coincidence that McD's, Wendy's, and BK all pay the same and are generally the same work conditions. Unless you're working for some unsophisticated family business, your employer knows what you're "worth" probably better than you do. They get regular reports on industry pay scales, salary surveys of their competitors, labour market outlooks, etc mostly from the same consulting firms and within industries they often set standard labour general practises

[martin14]

Yup, all businessmen are evil money grubbing bastards.



I had no problem paying my teachers up to 5 times over what the state offered,

but I also expected 5 times the value of work put into the job.

[herbie]

$1:

Imagine how many places would open up if employers could reduce the minimum wage
from 12 to 7 dollars an hour

That's the whole argument. Imagine. You're imagining somewhere with a $12 an hour minimum wage. How about reality instead: $11 in Nunavut. Might by you a fucking hot dog. Ooh! If I could pay people half a hot dog an hour I'd hire lots.
The goddam cashiers in the union supermarkets work their way up to $12 in this day an age.

[raydan]

But if wages are too low, won't a lot of these people just go on welfare and stay there? If you get rid of minimum wage, you have to get rid of welfare.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How so?

By: 1. reducing the number of unskilled jobs available ("I'll hire 6 employees at $7/hr but only 3 at $12/hr);
2. reducing labour force participation, especially among the most unskilled ("Why should I go look for work when there's someone better than me applying?");
3. by short-supplying the labour market, we over-reward those fortunate enough to find a minimum-wage job. So we remove their incentive to improve their lot in life, encouraging minimum-wage employees to remain so;
4. we burden small-businesses who employ more unskilled labour;
5. we burden immigrants, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
6. we create a disincentive to move from employee to entrepreneur by artificially increasing employee returns, relatively;
7. we burden women, who over-represent in terms of unskilled labour;
8. we overwork our unskilled labour (fewer people doing the same task);
9. we create resentment for unskilled labour;
10. we encourage young people to favour work over education;

Jesus, I could run this list up to 100 without a whole lot more thought, but I think I'd need Khar to type it all up for me.

1) If we're importing workers to do minimum wage labour, then losing some of those jobs may not be such a negative as long os domestics are taking them. Additionally, that money goes into our economy, not someone else's.

2) You've lost me on that one. How would higher wages result in some 18 year old fresh out of school not want to look for work?

3) Over rewarding? Is it up to the labour market to provide incentives for the individual to move on up? Again, I would think if a minimum wage employee is making a living wage that allows them to support themselves (which ultimately contributes to the economy) then so what if they stay in that job for a length of time?

4) True, however, that money goes back into the economy.

5) How does minimum wage burden immigrants?

6) Possibly. However, I'm not sure how you figure $7 hr motivates a worker to be an entrepreneur. That takes money that $7 hr does not provide.

7) How?

How? Because one hires fewer workers?

9) Why would I feel resentful for some waitress making $12 hr? I do feel resentful when a BC ferries teller makes $20 plus an hr because of her union so that she can provide me some indifferent service.

10) Right now I think we favour education over work which is an imbalance. Society lauds secondary education but it also burdens people with crippling debt which thereby slows economic involvement in society - in other words, once they get their min wage job after university (depending on their degree) their financing debt and not buying stuff. They're also going to university because those non university jobs are drying up or being replaced by min wage jobs.

As much as I support secondary education, I also think that is being treated as a panacea when it is clearly not. It is a sweet deal for universities and banks, however.