Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Traitorfish]

It would be a good idea to take the setting of minimum wages out of the hands of politicians.

That's actually a really solid point.

1. Raise it, but do so because its time for it, and do it in an increment that makes sense, not something arbitrary pulled out of a hat.

2. Don't raise it because the net result will be in actual wages per worker lost due to layoffs and reduced shifts.

OP asks us to state whether we are pro or anti a proposal, give an argument for the opposite position.

MobBoss states that he is anti, gives anti argument.


Way to play along, there, guy.

 

[Borachio]

1. Raise it.

2. It makes no difference to increase the money people at the bottom have if at the same time you raise prices. Which you would, I'm sure.

(Strange way of structuring an OP. But still.)

 

[MobBoss]

That's actually a really solid point.


OP asks us to state whether we are pro or anti a proposal, give an argument for the opposite position.

MobBoss states that he is anti, gives anti argument.


Way to play along, there, guy.

Actually, I thought I was giving a pro argument first and then followed up with an anti argument. Wasn't that what I was supposed to do?

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. I don't think you were far off. You gave a reason for being pro. Which was specifically not asked for. But other than that...

... you began with this:

If it is raised and then people are laid off or hours reduced because of it, then what is the net gain? The cost of raising that much has to come from somewhere...so who pays exactly?

which I take as a statement of being anti. But it may not be.

So, perhaps you didn't play fair. I think we're meant to give our honest opinion about whether to raise it or not, and then deliberately argue against our own honest opinion. Which is a new take.

The question is, Mr Boss, are you anti or pro? I'd suspect you're really anti, and just said that you were pro, because then you could argue along with your honest opinion. But I could be wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like all policies, it has winners and losers. There's a subset of people for whom the new cost won't match their marginal productivity. Those jobs will be lost. It will be a pay raise for most others (which can have a local multiplier effect).

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah. I don't think you were far off. You gave a reason for being pro. Which was specifically not asked for. But other than that...

... you began with this:


which I take as a statement of being anti. But it may not be.

So, perhaps you didn't play fair. I think we're meant to give our honest opinion about whether to raise it or not, and then deliberately argue against our own honest opinion. Which is a new take.

The question is, Mr Boss, are you anti or pro? I'd suspect you're really anti, and just said that you were pro, because then you could argue along with your honest opinion. But I could be wrong.

I think it should be raised. I don't think it should be doubled. In fact, I wish we could just settle the matter and tie it somehow to the rate of inflation and leave it at that.

 

[Borachio]

I remember working for a dairy one time. Every year they'd decide to give us a pay raise (no union involvement - a totally unilateral decision). It wasn't a bad firm to work for, as firms go, and they paid very slightly (~0.05% higher maybe) above the going rate for our jobs.

But the pay rise always, always came with a demand for higher productivity.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I think it should be raised. I don't think it should be doubled. In fact, I wish we could just settle the matter and tie it somehow to the rate of inflation and leave it at that.

Yeah let's pin it to its mid-1960s PPP number and then pin that to inflation. Oh wait, that would more than double the minimum wage rate. Right.

 

[Zelig]

In fact, I wish we could just settle the matter and tie it somehow to the rate of inflation and leave it at that.

Probably better to tie it to rate of GDP growth.

 

[MobBoss]

I remember working for a dairy one time. Every year they'd decide to give us a pay raise (no union involvement - a totally unilateral decision). It wasn't a bad firm to work for, as firms go, and they paid very slightly (~0.05% higher maybe) above the going rate for our jobs.

But the pay rise always, always came with a demand for higher productivity.

As long there is an element of turn over rate where new employees are starting at the bottom that's feasible.

 

[Borachio]

It certainly was feasible. It was quite successful at what it did. And sure there's always going to a natural turnover of staff as some people reach retirement, just plain die, or relocate.

But my point was: "Here's a pay rise for you, with an extra tuppence a week since we're so generous. Oh, and btw, work twice as hard, will you?"

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, I thought I was giving a pro argument first and then followed up with an anti argument. Wasn't that what I was supposed to do?

The OP didn't ask whether you were in favour of raising the minimum wage in general, but whether you were in favour of the specific proposal to raise it to $15/hour. Saying "I am in favour of raising it, but not to the proposed $15" is a roundabout way of saying "I am not in favour of the proposed amount".

 

[MobBoss]

The OP didn't ask whether you were in favour of raising the minimum wage in general, but whether you were in favour of the specific proposal to raise it to $15/hour. Saying "I am in favour of raising it, but not to the proposed $15" is a roundabout way of saying "I am not in favour of the proposed amount".

Ah..and have you, yourself, given such an answer in this thread yet?

Or did you chime in just to be overly critical of mine?

 

[Antilogic]

1) Increase it
2) I don't want to increase it because I'm a rich ass[aperture] who hates poor people.

That's seriously the only reasonable argument against it.

That was going to be my answer. Or no, it should be higher, so that I can argue pro-minimum wage.

If it is raised and then people are laid off or hours reduced because of it, then what is the net gain? The cost of raising that much has to come from somewhere...so who pays exactly?

Ideally, corporate profits. Passing the costs on to the consumer only perpetuates the market failure.

 

[El_Machinae]

Probably better to tie it to rate of GDP growth.

Vastly so. Tying it to inflation intentionally perpetuates the problem (unless the minimum wage is initially set to some 'non-poor' baseline).

Part of the goal is for the median employed class to get progressively wealthier over time

 

[Antilogic]

Vastly so. Tying it to inflation intentionally perpetuates the problem (unless the minimum wage is initially set to some 'non-poor' baseline).

Part of the goal is for the median employed class to get progressively wealthier over time

Tying it to inflation also doesn't account for increases in worker productivity. $15/hr will beat inflation from the 1960s and 1970s, but it won't account for greater productivity (would be closer to $22-25/hr if memory serves).

 

[Flying Pig]

It's a problem insofar as unemployment is a problem for those who are unemployed.

I think it's not a problem but for completely the opposite reason - namely, there aren't a lot of jobs left that can be done by robots or people in Vietnam, for the simple reason that those jobs are already being done by robots or people in Vietnam. Most of the people left working minimum-wage jobs are low-skilled service industry workers, such as shop assistants, fast food waiters, traffic wardens, and so on. The minimum wage would have to be a lot lower to compete with the running costs of robots.

 

[El_Machinae]

It only delays the inevitable. The minimum wage for a person is about 2000 calories per day. Getting a robot from "competes with $15/hr" to "competes with 2000 cals per day" is only a few doublings when we're dealing with exponential technologies.

 

[Borachio]

Make that robot run on biofuel and your comparison with humans is complete, I think.

But humans are self-maintaining and repairing, and reproduce nicely (if you grant them a little privacy and time). Not so clever looking now, your robot, eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

Nearly complete. Humans only kinda run on biofuels right now, given that it takes about 10 calories of fossil fuel to make one calorie of food these days.