Poll: Minimum Wage

[Perfection]

International =/= free trade.

Fair enough, but I think my example satisfies both.

 

[Godwynn]

Certainly there are few instances where lowering minimum wage will result in lower prices, but that's the exception not the rule. The minimum wage sector is a small portion of the American economy and is pretty much limited to students retirees the mentally handicapped and a few rural areas. It's a tiny fraction of the American economy.

What about those 5% of workers without a job. If we lowered minimum wage, then corporations can afford to hire them. Surely you agree that more people making money is better than a few making more?

Minnesota, the greatest state in the union.

I don't see how you and rmsharpe can live in the same state together.

 

[Pbhead]

Except there's no such thing. There never has and there never will be.

there IS no such thing, but what makes you thing there cant be? we can get much closer than we currently are, and that is what we should try to do.

Living minimum wage w/ exceptions based on age and maybe type of work.

simply. No.

think these things through... and you will discover...

 

[Perfection]

What about those 5% of workers without a job. If we lowered minimum wage, then corporations can afford to hire them. Surely you agree that more people making money is better than a few making more?

I don't think that's a correct supposition. Most of those workers simply wouldn't accept a job of such low-wage. It would cost them more to take the job then they'd get out of it.

I don't see how you and rmsharpe can live in the same state together.

Why do you say that?

 

[Godwynn]

I don't think that's a correct supposition. Most of those workers simply wouldn't accept a job of such low-wage. It would cost them more to take the job then they'd get out of it.

Again, cost is related to the price of the product.

Why do you say that?

You two are quite opposites.

I gotta get off to do some Math homework so I can get a good job as a manager and exploit the lower and working classes.

Until we meet again!

 

[Birdjaguar]

BETTER idea: let each individual worker set his own price, let us make our own rules, if you think that company "a" is not giving you enough dough, you can head over to company "b"

make your own contracts, let yourself have the choices!

and i thought i said i was going to bed... o well...

People can move from job to job now and many do so especially if it is a hot market for their particular skills. But for those at the lower end of the pay spectrum most do not have either the willingness or skills to negotiate their own market price. Many of thsoe people have a hard time even showing up for work on a regular basis. Cities and states have some sense of their local employement markets and can be held accountable to some extent by voters. You have to keep in mind that the goal is two pronged: match wages to the job and provide for people. You cannot ignore one in favor of the other.

If we could improve our education system, we would have more interesting options.

 

[WillJ]

I wasn't actually arguing in favor of tariffs, just pointing out that they were an equivalent and yet more effective solution to what Godwynn proposed: in short, that concerns over foreign underpricing are better met by forcibly raising foreign prices than by forcibly lowering your own.

Why is that?

In any case, tariffs do not necessitate economic isolation as long as tariffs are set to simply equalize prices and not raise foreign prices beyond domestic.

Even if they don't result in economic isolation, they result in less economic expansion, which is never a good thing.

(It is also noteworthy that the US government thrived largely on tariffs during the 1800s and that, during that time, the US economy did quite well for itself.)

The US economic growth of the late 1800s, as far as I know, had nothing to do the tariffs in place, but rather was in spite of them, which was possible because the world wasn't nearly as economically globalized then as it is now. And perhaps it should be noted that immigration (which could be considered trade of human capital) greatly helped the U.S.'s economy at the time.

Now I sound like I'm arguing in favor of tariffs again. Oh well. Maybe they wouldn't be such a bad idea, at least in moderation.

Well, in moderation they'd only be moderately bad.

As for comparable economic standards: India is not a true example as the US does not have and never has had free trade relations with India.

Regardless, the outsourcing of IT jobs from America to India is an example of trade that has benefited both countries. If trade between the two countries were truly free, the only difference is we'd be seeing more of this.

The US has only NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm not going to bring it up further, but NAFTA is an okay thing while CAFTA is an economic disaster for everyone involved because it promotes exploitation in poor countries and causes outsourcing in wealthy countries.

If you won't bring it up any further, I'm sorry for continuing, but...

Outsourcing and what you call "exploitation" are not bad things, unless of course you think people in wealthy countries are entitled by birth to their jobs, and people in poor countries must die miserable deaths, lest multinational corporations pay them for their labor and let them step on the first rung of the ladder toward economic prosperity. (I'll admit this is an oversimplication, but by and large I think it's a good one. )

There are certainly problems with CAFTA, but by my knowledge, they have little to do with free trade, and more with allowing environmental destruction and flooding foreign markets with subsidized American products for geo-political reasons.

 

[skadistic]

A raise in min wage means a few will get better wages, but many will be laid off.

which is better for the economy?

Can you back that assumption up with data from past raises? Was there mass flockings to the unemployment line?

 

[Perfection]

Again, cost is related to the price of the product.

Not significantly. If minimum wage is abolished there won't be a significant price decrease because the number of workers it effects would be small.

You two are quite opposites.

How so? On economic manners I find myself quite often agreeing with Mr. Sharpe

 

[aneeshm]

What many do not realise is the imposing a minimum wage effectively makes unemployable those whose skills allow them to provide labour whose value is less than the minimum wage . It also makes unprofitable all businesses which are labour-intensive , use the labour described above , and have small margins .

So I'm for abolishing it .

 

[Perfection]

What many do not realise is the imposing a minimum wage effectively makes unemployable those whose skills allow them to provide labout whose value is less than the minimum wage.

The amount of people in America that fall into that catagory is quite small.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, I would say raise it to adjust for inflation, but that isn't much and it is largely based on the fact that I am a working grunt.

Actually, in Alberta the minimum wage is not very relevant since there are so many jobs. Almost no one actually makes minimum wage except high school kids who don't know any better.

 

[Hotpoint]

Might be worth noting that in the most recent country to adopt a minimum wage (the United Kingdom in 1999 which set it much higher than in the US) the following happened:

Unemployment dropped
Inflation went down
Productivity went up

Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The bottom line there is, employment has not been reduced, productivity has increased in affected companies (especially service companies),[10] and neither trade unions nor employer organisations contest the minimum wage, although especially the latter had been doing so heavily until 1999.

A national minimum wage (NMW) was introduced for the first time by Tony Blair's Labour government in April, 1999, at the rate of £3.60 per hour for those workers aged over 22. It took the recommendation of this rate from the Low Pay Commission, an independent body that the government had appointed in July, 1997. The LPC exists to this day to maintain the NMW, and consists of three members with a trades union background, three members with an employer background, and three academic labour market relations experts. The commission is widely regarded as a successfully example of 'social partnership'. The current minimum wage in the UK for adults aged 22 or older is £5.05 or approximately $9, as compared with $5.15 in the US. This will rise to £5.35 in October 2006. Despite a much higher minimum wage, the UK has lower unemployment than the US.

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

The moral: Don't let yourself think that any economic theory is 100% correct. Reality may not necessarily indicate it is

 

[Tulkas12]

Might be worth noting that in the most recent country to adopt a minimum wage (the United Kingdom in 1999 which set it much higher than in the US) the following happened:

Unemployment dropped
Inflation went down
Productivity went up





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

The moral: Don't let yourself think that any economic theory is 100% correct. Reality may not necessarily indicate it is

Whats the population of the U.K. again? Where did these numbers come from?
I trust wikipedia about as far as I can throw it, mainly when it stars throwing percentages at me. I doubt these numbers and feel that the low unemployment in the U.K. has to do with a change in the way its accounted. I geuss this is just cycism though.

 

[amadeus]

We don't need it anymore, so get rid of it.

 

[.Shane.]

Let states and cities set their own.

They can, so long as its above the federal limit. For instance, in California the minimum wage is higher than the national mw.

 

[Hotpoint]

Whats the population of the U.K. again? Where did these numbers come from?

The population of the UK is about 60 Million. As for the numbers they are actually referenced on wikipedia and come from a Low Pay Commision (Government) Report

http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/

I trust wikipedia about as far as I can throw it, mainly when it stars throwing percentages at me. I doubt these numbers and feel that the low unemployment in the U.K. has to do with a change in the way its accounted. I geuss this is just cycism though.

Not so much cynicism as an automatic rejection that the numbers might actually be right perhaps

If you can find numbers to the contrary please feel free to cite them.

 

[Tulkas12]

The population of the UK is about 60 Million. As for the numbers they are actually referenced on wikipedia and come from a Low Pay Commision (Government) Report

http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/



Not so much cynicism as an automatic rejection that the numbers might actually be right perhaps

If you can find numbers to the contrary please feel free to cite them.

Nah, they are probably fairly accurate and it would take some real research to come up with third party numbers on the U.K.s unemployment rate. It is a surprise and is very counter-intuitive though. I would say that because it worked there, that it doesn't make for good policy here. Our taxes are vastly less, our costs are less as well.

Someone pointed out that california has a higher min. wage, this is true because of the increased costs of living there. Its also true in several other states.

 

[aneeshm]

The amount of people in America that fall into that catagory is quite small.

Maybe , but you are telling that group of people that they can never be employed , ever . You are dooming them to perpetual unemployment , which is the grossest of injustices .

 

[Narz]

I voted to eliminate it altogether. It's bad for the economy and creates unemployment.

It also encourages people to hire illegals and pay under the table (which of course can be a good thing ).