If the $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage is so Good Why are Unions Getting Exemptions From it?

a reply to: Aazadan

Isn't the co-op business platform more a democratic form of business where people take equal responsibility for the successful outcome and therefore accept a more proportional part of the profit ei paid what they are actually worth

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's a limiting factor of the population. Going by the US 2010 census there are 8,021,033 people in the US between 16 and 18 years of age while there are 167,872,065 between 18 and 62. Combined that's a workforce of 175,893,098 people and the teenagers are 4.5% of that workforce. Even if they were all working (that's the group that has the lowest labor force participation rate) it's numerically impossible to fill all of the low skilled jobs with people of that age bracket. You must use older workers who have to support themselves if you're going to have those jobs.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

Isn't the co-op business platform more a democratic form of business where people take equal responsibility for the successful outcome and therefore accept a more proportional part of the profit ei paid what they are actually worth

Certain companies offer profit sharing and I think that's an equitable system. On the other hand I don't think that's a solution for everyone. I have no problem with employee owned companies but I think that it's also important for business owners who take on the risk and expense of starting a company to retain ownership of that company. It all depends on the origins of the company in my opinion.

Sometimes however a company just doesn't pay well and it's not the fault of that company. There was a deli/sandwich shop I once worked at for example. I made minimum wage at the time ($3/hour, tipped position) while the highest paid employee which was the owner made $12/hour. An increase to the minimum wage, even assuming that company could afford it would have still resulted in everyone making the minimum and as such having a bare bones lifestyle. Profit sharing wouldn't have improved that situation, only large changes where people at the minimum could afford things like a home (as was the case in the 50's and 60's) could change that, and that would require a sustained political effort for 30 years to gradually adjust the wage. In situations like this a maximum wage gap simply doesn't work because it's predicated on the idea that the owner of each company has huge amounts of money to throw around.

a reply to: Aazadan

So you completely exclude my explanation? Is it not obvious?

You cite macro-economics, population statistics and ignore where the rubber meets the road. It is that same mentality in our 'educated' gov'ts that have gotten us into this mess.

Big government, big statistics, moving a whole 'class' of people 'upwards'. Sigh.

This is a nation of individuals. The largest minority there is, the minority of one. They have their individual responsibility as well. That also is ignored in the macro equations.

The line is crossed when lending a helping hand morphs into moving a whole 'class' of people.

Learn from this, if you choose to. It is a bit of understanding that comes with age/experience. Not on the road to earning 'credits'....

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's not that I'm ignoring your explanation, it's that your explanation doesn't make sense. It's essentially saying to ignore population demographics, cost of living, and everything else in favor of an unfounded belief as to how these things work. The argument that the educated have gotten into this mess and it's the uneducated common sense approach that will fix it is the same approach that lead to executing all the farmers under Stalin and the subsequent famines that killed millions.

Few 16-18 year olds in any wage bracket has nothing to do with a minimum wage and everything to do with the total number of 16-18 year olds in the country. There are (as of 2010) 8,021,033 people in the country that fit that criteria (and that includes illegals). Even with 100% labor force participation that means you cannot surpass 8 million jobs designed for people to not be able to support themselves. 8 million doesn't even cover the number of jobs in that wage bracket in just California.

You mention that one cannot move an entire class of people, yet we have done just that. In the 60's the bottom 50% of people collectively owned 3% of the wealth in the nation, today it is 1%. That group of people has seen their share of the pie get cut into a third of what it was and that represents a large movement downwards of multiple classes of people. This has coincided with the decline in purchasing power of the minimum wage, and it has been a fairly linear decrease. The minimum wage today has approximately 1/3 the purchasing power it had in 1967 and the share of wealth of those earning minimum wage is now a third of what it was in 1967. This is not coincidental.

Even as a nation of individuals, lets say everyone is very intelligent, is a polymath, and has a corresponding wide array of knowledge both general and specific, for good measure lets say everyone also posses a minimum of 2 Masters degrees and a PhD. In this society you will still have people acting as a cashier, shelf stocker, toilet cleaner, trash man, sandwich maker, burger flipper, and all the rest. If everyone practices personal responsibility and becomes educated and skilled no one has an edge on anyone else, and everyone falls back to the bottom. In this society people will still earn minimum wage, and under the current economic model these educated responsible citizens will live in substandard housing and go hungry.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your whole post is full of contradictions. Your 50% that has dropped from 3% to 1% is NOT due to minimum wage issues, per say. It's much more due to middle class wage issues. You or the article may position it due to minimum wages, but omitting the massive increase of immigration since that time, legal and otherwise, also entered a change in that supply and demand equation.

Add in the job loss to developing nations and one have a bigger picture of that percentile. The loss of manufacturing jobs, much higher paying than minimum wage positions, has decreased the overall earnings in you 'macro' statistics.

My unfounded view is based on empirical evidence as opposed to pedantic, self-perpetuating academia that hasn't run a business in their lives.

While there is value is your 'statistics', it is limited, at best.

You somehow position the drop from 3 to 1%, as some form of proof that gov't edict can do the opposite? Sorry, it won't wash. Get those jobs back, reduce the artificial increase in the work-force and the market-place will correct.

Increase minimum wages decreases the number of jobs, by your own posts.

You completely ignore my points on 16 to 18 year olds and call them "unfounded". I see your views as delusional pap spewed from ivory towers of academia.

Yes, we are adversaries. There's the grid-lock at the grass-roots level that you deny exists....

I done with this...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Middle class wages are directly tied to minimum wage. Like opponents of the minimum wage like to point out, if you were to double the minimum wage, what happens to the people making $10/hour right now? Their wage goes up, the same is true of the people making $20/hour. When the minimum wage doesn't increase, other wages also don't increase.

In fact under capitalism which is all about achieving better, faster, and cheaper through competition wages if left to their own devices will for the majority of society naturally converge to zero.

You can see the effect this has had on middle class workers by looking at purchasing power. The work force is currently higher skilled than it has been at any time in history and it is also more productive than at any time in history yet purchasing power is at it's lowest. Even in colonial times purchasing power was roughly double what it is today. You can even look to the industrial revolution, when purchasing power was at it's lowest in the late 1800's and the introduction of a minimum wage which reversed that trend.

When it comes to a reduction in employment that only occurs with a large shift, such as you would see if you were to bump it up to $15 or even $10. When the shift is gradual, just a small percentage per year the unemployment effects don't happen because the economy can adjust to changing conditions.

Outsourcing has done nothing to minimum wage because minimum wage positions aren't outsourced. Typically what are outsourced are medium paying jobs such as those going to the 30th-60th income percentile workers, effectively the middle class. Jobs such as factory work which used to pay well are outsourced to countries that pay very little. Those jobs are then replaced with low paying service sector jobs. Outsourcing, rather than decreasing the minimum wage propagates it. Outsourcing also increases GDP (this is where statistics diverge from reality) by creating more items at lower cost. However what you'll find with outsourcing is that you make the majority poorer while a few at the top such as upper management reap the benefits.

Lots of good economic discussion. I have two points.

1. Can we have the word inflation back please. It used to mean something. Specifically, it meant an increase in the money supply. Inflation is rampant.

The EFFECTS of inflation, which all of you seem to conflate with and/or use the political definition, of the word inflation, are hardly being felt. True inflation off the charts. See M1 or M2.

2. If we had sound economic policy with a sound currency, rising GDP would create a deflationary currency, and none of this would be a problem. People generally wouldn't need raises, as society produced more, that would raise the value of your currency.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

Middle class wages are directly tied to minimum wage. Like opponents of the minimum wage like to point out, if you were to double the minimum wage, what happens to the people making $10/hour right now? Their wage goes up, the same is true of the people making $20/hour. When the minimum wage doesn't increase, other wages also don't increase.


Not true. The oil industry's current boom and the wages being paid has zero to do with minimum wages. It has to do with supply and demand. Market forces. If one decreases the jobs, especially middle class and higher paying jobs, one has downward looking, newly unemployed middle-class level people competing for the lower paying jobs...right down to minimum wage levels. Add in a massive increase of unskilled, newly legalized workers to an already out of balance supply and demand mechanism and the low end wages would remain low. Even the so-called low skill jobs that pay minimum wage in other states are being paid higher than minimums in the boom states like N.D. Texas et al,due to the locals won't work those jobs for low wages. The expectation level is higher due to the supply and demand levels and that has driven up all wages in the region. Supply and demand. NOT legislation...

In fact under capitalism which is all about achieving better, faster, and cheaper through competition wages if left to their own devices will for the majority of society naturally converge to zero.

You can see the effect this has had on middle class workers by looking at purchasing power. The work force is currently higher skilled than it has been at any time in history and it is also more productive than at any time in history yet purchasing power is at it's lowest. Even in colonial times purchasing power was roughly double what it is today. You can even look to the industrial revolution, when purchasing power was at it's lowest in the late 1800's and the introduction of a minimum wage which reversed that trend.

All due to supply and demand. Forcing higher wages decreases the jobs which drives the supply and demand further off kilter.

When it comes to a reduction in employment that only occurs with a large shift, such as you would see if you were to bump it up to $15 or even $10. When the shift is gradual, just a small percentage per year the unemployment effects don't happen because the economy can adjust to changing conditions.


Not true, at all. Many businesses in Seattle are shutting the doors/relocating, mostly restaurants, as a result of the minimum wage increase. They ARE bringing that minimum wage in incrementally as well, by the way. The idea that work force reduction only occurs in 'large shifts' is contradicted by the steady closing of small businesses and many not so small as we speak...with no increase in the minimum wage. That will only speed up those closures. Basic economics, my man, learn them...

Outsourcing has done nothing to minimum wage because minimum wage positions aren't outsourced. Typically what are outsourced are medium paying jobs such as those going to the 30th-60th income percentile workers, effectively the middle class. Jobs such as factory work which used to pay well are outsourced to countries that pay very little. Those jobs are then replaced with low paying service sector jobs. Outsourcing, rather than decreasing the minimum wage propagates it. Outsourcing also increases GDP (this is where statistics diverge from reality) by creating more items at lower cost. However what you'll find with outsourcing is that you make the majority poorer while a few at the top such as upper management reap the benefits.

I never mentioned outsourcing. It does, however, leave even more locals unemployed and adds to the the supply side of labor, and helps keep wages low in the remaining jobs...again basic.