Economics 101: Raise Minimum Wage and Jobs Decrease

Originally posted by Odium
Many of these people who are paid; Minimum wage are students and the un-educated. Many of them can't get better jobs or are trying to through the education process. However, they can also be rail-roaded into working in the area (without a job you can't get a car and so on and so fourth) so they have no choice.

An important fact to note here is that the average person earns minimum wage for only 6 months before they move up. I don't believe based on my reading that there is a large, static bloc of the population receiving minimum wage; it is a continuous influx of new workers making minimum wage and then cycling out of it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The North had far surpassed the South in terms of mechanization and efficiency. That's the reason they won the war.

Absolutely true. But the reason the North fought the civil war in the first place was to keep that industrial advantage, because slave labor coming to an increasing number of southern factories would quickly erode the North's advantage.

The South wanted to make slavery a states rights question, and also wanted to secede from the Union. In fact, eleven of them did secede.

Sure they did, but it was a tactic more than the great constitutional dilema painted by today's revisionist historians in high school text books. Certainly the elimination of slavery was one positive of the civil war, but economic issues primarily related to worker wages being unable to compete with slave labor were the main cause.

Can't have that, and still be called the United States of America, now can we?

United like it or not. It is much easier for the government to maintain things now that the economic issues of the day are social caste based rather than geographically based.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by df1]

Originally posted by Togetic
An important fact to note here is that the average person earns minimum wage for only 6 months before they move up. I don't believe based on my reading that there is a large, static bloc of the population receiving minimum wage; it is a continuous influx of new workers making minimum wage and then cycling out of it.

Even over minmum-wage though people still can barely earn enough to live. To even afford a room in a bedsit in my area, you need to earn over £8 per-hour. From the American family I have (NC, Chicago and NY) they have the same problems.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by jsobecky
The North had far surpassed the South in terms of mechanization and efficiency. That's the reason they won the war.

Absolutely true. But the reason the North fought the civil war in the first place was to keep that industrial advantage, because slave labor coming to an increasing number of southern factories would quickly erode the North's advantage.

No, there was no competition between the North and South that spurred the war. They were two differenet economies; the North was based upon industrialization, the South was based upon agriculture. Worker wages were never an issue.

The North was answering the slavery question on moral grounds. That and the fact that the South wanted to secede from the Union.

Can't have that, and still be called the United States of America, now can we?

United like it or not. It is much easier for the government to maintain things now that the economic issues of the day are social caste based rather than geographically based.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by df1]

Except that, that was not how things worked out. The economy grew in a geographical fashion, with the North becoming industrialized, and the South and West becoming mainly agricultural.

There was never any grand plan to segregate the population along any caste system. If there was, it never worked out.

Being neither old and senile I will ignore your snub. I lived through Reagan's trickle down economics (before you were born child) and I saw people who worked hard all their lives slip from the middle class because wages did not keep up with inflation. The simple truth of the matter is that you give tax breaks to the wealthy and they tend to stash it... you increase wages to the lower and middle classes and they spend it pumping that money right back into the economy where it continues to work.

The same is true when you spend your money at large corporate concerns such as Wal-Mart, yes you get a deal price wise, but when you buy local the money stays in the local economy instead and continues to generate work. The majority of the money you spend at Wal-mart is never returned to the local economy.

When people have the money, they spend it, generating both work and money. It is not so simple as you suggest, that increasing minimum wage hurts businesses. Instead, when people have more money to spend, they do, generating far more income than which is "lost" to the increase in wages.

A working economy works in all directions.

BTW waiting tables is not an awlful job. When I did it in the 70's and 80's you could walk away with $300 a night in tips. Try harvesting when you get paid by the pound or piece work.



[edit on 14-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by grover]

Grover the issue is with the topic of the forum not your insults or claims to be wise because of age. Also, being a former gardener, and boat builder, I have seen first hand the hard labor in the world. Stick to the topic, and please support your claims with data.

Originally posted by grover
Being neither old and senile I will ignore your snub.

Grover, give it up. Both you and I have been called old and senile here. The young have no respect, nor do they understand the value of experience. Just continue to make your point through reason. Eventually, they will learn. At least we hope they will.

The same is true when you spend your money at large corporate concerns such as Wal-Mart, yes you get a deal price wise, but when you buy local the money stays in the local economy instead and continues to generate work. The majority of the money you spend at Wal-mart is never returned to the local economy.

The fact is, studies have shown that mom & pop stores that are located close to Wal-Mart actually tend to thrive for several reasons, including proximity to a large customer base.

When people have the money, they spend it, generating both work and money. It is not so simple as you suggest, that increasing minimum wage hurts businesses. Instead, when people have more money to spend, they do, generating far more income than which is "lost" to the increase in wages.

You are correct; incremental raises in wages have little effect. But the problem with America is that the "living wage" jobs that raised and supported us for the past 50 years are disappearing. The only way to replace them is through an educated workforce, imo. And that takes 5 - 10 years to develop.

A working economy works in all directions.

Or, as JFK said, "A rising tide raises all ships".

Becky and other ATS users who are not of my age,

I mean no disrespect to those who are older than me, however I do disrespect who try to mask ignorance with seniority. Being older does not make you an authority. Becky and others support their points with fact, and not insults or jabs about inexperience. Being from Gen X does not make me lazy, inexperienced or susceptible to right wing propaganda.

To set the record straight, my economic views are free market, Hayek influenced. I despise neo-conservatives and what they stand for, especially dictating the right and non-rights of the citizens who pay for this country everyday at work. Neo-Conservatives are hypocritical ignorant fools who commit the same atrocities to the Constitution that left wingers are blamed for.

In conclusion, every man is entitled to his opinion, and if supported I will respect it. However age does not mean ability or authority.

Much Respect to all, and deny ignorance

Conrad

The same is true when you spend your money at large corporate concerns such as Wal-Mart, yes you get a deal price wise, but when you buy local the money stays in the local economy instead and continues to generate work. The majority of the money you spend at Wal-mart is never returned to the local economy.

When people have the money, they spend it, generating both work and money. It is not so simple as you suggest, that increasing minimum wage hurts businesses. Instead, when people have more money to spend, they do, generating far more income than which is "lost" to the increase in wages.

I would like to clear up that misconception. When you spend your money at Wal-Mart, it still goes in to the local economy. A corporation pays all the permits, and more than any small business does. They also employ much more people. Now theres over 300 people working at the Wal-Mart I am employed at. We spend our money in the city. The store pays its property tax. They contract all the maintenance and repair jobs to local contractors.

How can you say the money you spend at a Wal-Mart does not go back into the local economy? Even If ten small businesses are displaced from one Wal-Mart, that Wal-Mart, or other international conglomerate, they will employ a significantly higher volume of people at equal and higher wages, with benefits. We are paid by the people who shop there, and in turn spend our money likewise.

So yes, if you spend your money at a Wal-Mart, it still goes back into the local economy. And to be honest, ever since my store first opened three years ago, I have not seen one business in the area shut down.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Becky and other ATS users who are not of my age,

I mean no disrespect to those who are older than me, however I do disrespect who try to mask ignorance with seniority. Being older does not make you an authority. Becky and others support their points with fact, and not insults or jabs about inexperience. Being from Gen X does not make me lazy, inexperienced or susceptible to right wing propaganda.

I know you didn't; I'm sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out. I was not. I only wanted to cool down the tone, is all.

Btw, I'm probably younger than you think I am. And I am a man, regardless of my oft mis-interpreted username.

the minimum wage earners are mostly students??
do you mean college students who are coping with the raising tuition costs, books, lab fees, ect. ect.?
you surely can't be taking about high school students, since well, convenience stores, resturants, and the majority of the minimum wage payers are open during the hours that those high school students wouldn't be working.

and those who are supplementing an income....is this a kinder, not so offensive way of saying women?? you do realize that if a husband decides not to buy the food for his kids, or pay the rent, or whatever, that responsibility drops onto the wife, right? if she gets sick or hurt, and needs medical care.....it is her who is ultimately responsible for the medical bills. and......it is also her who after working those eight hrs a day for half the man's paycheck who goes home to take care of that other job she has, ya know, helping the kids with their homework, cooking the food, cleaning the home, giving the kids their baths, ect. ect. she's putting in the most hours in a day, for the least amount of money... and we wonder why motherhood is becoming such an unattractive endeavor...

and the uneducated......does this mean, those without a college degree, since it is getting more and more like without one, you can't earn a living wage no matter what ya do. but then, while they are student, well, they are those minimum wage earners aren't they, not even making enough to pay for their own needs, let alone the tuition, the book, ect. ect... that's what student loans are for!! so, well, who knows maybe that good paycheck isn't a living wage for them!

workers only stay in minimum wage jobs for about six months.....
about the amount of time it takes them to realize that their paycheck isn't making it, the company has no plans of raising their wage, and they move on to another hopeful that this one will be different?

in order for workers to stay productive at work they need certain needs to be met, they need food, they need shelter, they need clothing, and they need medical care when they are sick. one way or another these need will be met...either through dependency on someone else (causing that person to need a higher income), through dependency on the government (causing the government to want higher taxes), through getting another job (taking a job from someone else who needs it and neglecting their other responsibilities in life.), or hey, maybe they can deal a few drugs or some other illegal activity to earn a few extra bucks, right?

but well, either these needs are obtained, or well, we don't have productive workers, right?

the question is, just who should be paying for it.....it seems logical to me that the company who is benefiting from their labor should be the ones to pay the tab. heck even the old slave owners had to feed, cloth, and shelter their slaves or lose their labor through the natural consequences of failing to do so. having such a patheticallly low payscale means that we are all footing the bill....and then, half of us are having a fit for having to do so....by the way, it seems to be the same half that are fighting so hard to keep any minimum wage increase from happening. so, considering the fact that we will always need the store clerks, the file clerks, ect. ect. not to mention we all want the big mac delivered in such a timely manner....
umm...how do you propose we keep these workers alive and producing?

You went on the offensive the moment I disagreed with you for stating my opinion that your logic was flawed so you can just can the oh how I attacked you bullhooey.

BTW Josbecky we rarely agree on things but I am glad to see we do on this. And yes a rising tide lifts all boats... just so long as they are seaworthy in the first place.

As for the money Wal-mart "returns" to the community via permits, taxes and wages.... all of them combined are a pittance to what they take out.

Originally posted by dawnstar
the minimum wage earners are mostly students??
do you mean college students who are coping with the raising tuition costs, books, lab fees, ect. ect.?
you surely can't be taking about high school students, since well, convenience stores, resturants, and the majority of the minimum wage payers are open during the hours that those high school students wouldn't be working.

and those who are supplementing an income....is this a kinder, not so offensive way of saying women??

in order for workers to stay productive at work they need certain needs to be met, they need food, they need shelter, they need clothing, and they need medical care when they are sick. one way or another these need will be met...either through dependency on someone else (causing that person to need a higher income), through dependency on the government (causing the government to want higher taxes), through getting another job (taking a job from someone else who needs it and neglecting their other responsibilities in life.), or hey, maybe they can deal a few drugs or some other illegal activity to earn a few extra bucks, right?

Students: I meant college, which I am one, and I do participate in this system, plus FAFSA is a flawed system. I receive no little to no assistance from my parents but get screwed out of financial aid because of what they earn. Non-subsidized loans and Academic scholarships pay my way at a PRIVATE university.

Supplemental Income: I meant elderly who have retirement, assisted by their family and churches. We have numerous sources of charity in this country and too often these go to waste because no one utilizes them.

I have worked numerous jobs where I had to leave and could not find another for months at a time, but you bite the bullet and deal with the hard times. The days of old money aren't really around anymore. A lot of people who have money are still first generation.

My own step-father was one such. He never completed college and worked at a railroad company. Being neither protestant nor anglo-saxon he couldn't get into the union and hit a glass ceiling. He left went to work for RCA records and then later retired with his EARNED wealth. Anyone who says that because he was a manager and should have sacrificed his income to help another lowly entry level worker should get a reality check.

I will agree with you on this FAFSA is flawed. I just finished school and fortunately I am too old and senile to have to worry about what my parents make. Besides, I was in the VA vocational rehab program so whatever I got via financial aid was mine to spend as I liked aka supplement the meager stipend rehab gives you, but the students I knew your age really had to struggle with it.

The answer though is to rewrite the rules, not to cut the funds for it which is what the bush administration keeps trying to do.

The Bush administration has created the largest period of government expansion in the history of the US. Through ignoring the constitution to No Child Left Behind, and numerous other government programs, I am confused as to who did more damage to the country: Bush or FDR's economic recovery programs.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
The Bush administration has created the largest period of government expansion in the history of the US. Through ignoring the constitution to No Child Left Behind, and numerous other government programs, I am confused as to who did more damage to the country: Bush or FDR's economic recovery programs.

Actually I think if you actually look at it, the expansion you are talking about is in spending, mostly on the military and the like...expansion as in new programs; no..... especially not the ones that help the little guy.

Originally posted by grover

Actually I think if you actually look at it, the expansion you are talking about is in spending, mostly on the military and the like...expansion as in new programs; no..... especially not the ones that help the little guy.

You are right grover no help for the littler guy but for the few specialized skilled workers that got to benefit from working for the major defense department contractors like my husband. . .

Yes I have to say that the Bush administration over inflated defense department budget has benefited my husband and many like him. . . the war on terror and wars do benefit some after all. . .

But at the expenses of the littler people that has to deal with losing their middle class jobs in the manufacturing to join the kinds of wal-mart.

the irony.

Yes I am in the same group of Grover and Js, just a littler bit younger.

Originally posted by grover
Actually I think if you actually look at it, the expansion you are talking about is in spending, mostly on the military and the like...expansion as in new programs; no..... especially not the ones that help the little guy.

Yes, you are right, it's been mostly military expansion. But it has been necessary, imo.

Bush unfortunately became president at a very bad time. I doubt that any president from any party would have been able to control spending, given the circumstances.

The point is that its not our military spending that is helping either cause. Most of the defense spending goes to pet projects like new aircraft and missile defense systems, not to the troops on the ground. Last I checked, no missiles were used in the terror attacks, nor are we at war with any country who has range to hit us...unless you mean DPNK which last I checked we were still giving financial and humanitarian aid to.

The point is that like Grover has made a point of money is being spend but not on the correct things. What I feel as to what it should be spent on is different than Grover, but I still agree that the Air Force needs to have a conscience with its budget and the people need to speak louder at the voting booths.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, you are right, it's been mostly military expansion. But it has been necessary, imo.

And what exactly could justify a $532.8 Billion dollar defense budget?

The defense industry is really one of the more safer markets for companies to invest in, seeing as most R&D costs are covered by tax dollars, failed programs are given additional funds to get them working, and companies often recieve massive grants and dont have to preform any competitive bidding for contracts. The government (tax payers) pay the initial start up costs and assume all the risks, while the companies recieve all the profits.