Minimum wage/BUI (split from Immigration)

[MigL]

Again I ask because I'm not very familiar with all American States.
I am familiar with New York State where minimum wage currently stands at $12.50/hr ( I believe ), and is scheduled to increase to $15/hr over the next couple of years.
Is minimum wage a state responsibility, or is it federal jurisdiction ?
Does every State have their own min wage, and how low is it in some of the poor Southern States ?
Seems a lot of the poor Southern States are very good at attracting industry, with 'Right-to Work' legislation and low min wages.
Are they purposely keeping people at low wages/non-union to attract industry/jobs ?

Would a federally mandated equitable minimum wage help lift the poor states out of poverty, or would industry/jobs go out of country ?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

s minimum wage a state responsibility, or is it federal jurisdiction ?
Does every State have their own min wage, and how low is it in some of the poor Southern States ?

Each state sets their own minimum wage locally, but it must be >=  the federally mandated minimum. 

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage

Edited January 13, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

Looking at it only from a fiscal perspective, our 'Western' populations are aging.
We don't produce enough kids to replenish our population, and we live longer.
In a few years half the population will be of retirement age or older, and only one quarter will actually be working, and paying taxes, to support the others through subsidies and pensions. That is untenable.

Immigration brings in the young people to support an aging population.
Furthermore, If you are only going to pay immigrants minimum wage, which doesn't pay much taxes, you haven't resolved the issue.
Unless immigrants are well paid, and pay a fair amount of taxes, all of us older ( soon to be ) retired people will be eating cat food.
( and my cats don't like to share   )

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

and my cats don't like to share 

The obvious conclusion is to switch to dogs, then.

[MigL]

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The obvious conclusion is to switch to dogs, then.

Yeah, right.
You ever try taking away food from a German Shepherd ?

[CharonY]

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yeah, right.
You ever try taking away food from a German Shepherd ?

I did, actually and it was not even mine (but admittedly, a mild mannered one). Also from a cat, once (I still got scars from that one). I should stop stealing from pets is what I am saying.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 1/13/2021 at 3:36 PM, MigL said:

 

Would a federally mandated equitable minimum wage help lift the poor states out of poverty, or would industry/jobs go out of country ?

They would hurt the poor states and poor regions the most, all things being the same otherwise.

Compare with a universal basic income (maybe less than the $1,000/month advocated by Yang, but substantial), and lesser minimum wages set by States and adjusted for regions.

Also consider exempting minimum wages for smaller and/or start up enterprises.

I realize this is off topic and if a mod could split it off that would be appreciated. Thanks.

On 1/13/2021 at 2:26 PM, Phi for All said:

Of course the counter to that is that mom & pop were barely making ends meet because minimum wage workers couldn't afford to eat at their place. Raise the wages and more people have the power to participate in their own economy. 

Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs. (so where is the balance...and is it country wide...or even state wide?)

 

On 1/13/2021 at 2:26 PM, Phi for All said:

 Yet mom & pop regularly vote down wage increases, hoping for new blood from old turnips.

 

Of course they would. If they are paying minimum wage it's a direct increased cost. How much of that increase cost is recouped in their small market share of potential spending, with the large mops of large consumer corporations ready to soak it up?

Why are they obligated to compete economically, as if they are on a level playing field, with an artificially high and arbitrary cost added to them, simply because a minimum wage is required to, quite plausibly, help offset the fact that some large business interests have an unfair advantage over many workers.

Many people work for less than minimum wage and legally. They're called small business owners.

[J.C.MacSwell]

...and they create far more share of jobs than the average person.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They would hurt the poor states and poor regions the most, all things being the same otherwise.

Why?

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs. (so where is the balance...and is it country wide...or even state wide?)

Why? Is “high enough” some reasonable number? Like $20 vs the $15 being implemented or proposed? Or is it more like making it $200 an hour, which isn’t in the ballpark of what’s being discussed?

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Many people work for less than minimum wage and legally. They're called small business owners.

That’s not a wage, though.

[dimreepr]

Is it fair to pay, let's say, a football player enough in a year to retire on, for doing something they love?

While, let's say, a nurse has to rely on food bank's to make ends meet?

I don't blame the footballer for accepting the money, I blame us for accepting unregulated capitalism as the benchmark of fairness.

Chasing job's for the sake of work is mindless, we have enough farmer's/nurse's/shit shoveler's who either love the job's or are willing to work hard for it's own sake or their's; that we can a) afford to pay them an inticing, more than livable wage. b) afford to pay other's a more than livable wage to keep us entertained. c) with enough left over to pay the rest of us to be lazy enough, not to fuck up the planet. 

Ricky forgets the pleasure that the industrious mouse gets from it's lecture...

Kinda reminds me of Hemingway's "The old man and the sea".

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why?

 

For the same reason poorer countries shouldn't set a minimum wage at 15 USD equivalent, which would quickly kill jobs. Obviously making marginal increases has a slower effect (good or bad, depending on whether it is already set too high or too low) but is it not clear that the optimum minimum wage is not one size fits all?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Why? Is “high enough” some reasonable number? Like $20 vs the $15 being implemented or proposed? 

 

Of course it isn't. I defined this particular "high enough" as "few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs." The point is there is a need to strike a balance, and that the factors that effect it are not the same everywhere.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not a wage, though.

They are often doing most or a substantial part of the work. Do you not suspect higher minimum wages will effect their earnings and often necessitate working even longer hours, while reducing those of their employees? That's assuming they stay in business.

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For the same reason poorer countries shouldn't set a minimum wage at 15 USD equivalent, which would quickly kill jobs. Obviously making marginal increases has a slower effect (good or bad, depending on whether it is already set too high or too low) but is it not clear that the optimum minimum wage is not one size fits all?

What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would “quickly kill jobs”?

Quote

Of course it isn't. I defined this particular "high enough" as "few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs." The point is there is a need to strike a balance, and that the factors that effect it are not the same everywhere.

I’m trying to ascertain if this is true because it’s absurd, or simply an unsupported assertion. What’s the evidence that they won’t have jobs? It’s a talking point for opponents of higher wages, but AFAICT that’s all it is. 

 

Quote

They are often doing most or a substantial part of the work. Do you not suspect higher minimum wages will effect their earnings and often necessitate working even longer hours, while reducing those of their employees? That's assuming they stay in business.

Reducing hours of employees? You’ve presented no evidence of this. Not even taken a stab at an analysis. Just rhetoric.

[iNow]

Probably because the evidence doesn’t support those talking points.

https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-testimony-feb-2019/

 

Quote

Minimum wages are one of the most well-studied topics in economics. Although there sometimes appears to be much controversy about size of the employment effects of the minimum wage, the weight of recent evidence shows that minimum wage increases have worked exactly as intended, by raising wages without substantial negative consequences on employment. Paul Wolfson and Dale Belman reviewed 15 years of research published since 2001—which comprised 37 studies and 739 estimates—and found that the average estimated employment effect of minimum wage increases was very small.5 In addition, Wolfson and Belman, as well as Isaiah Andrews and Maximilian Kasy in a new review, found statistical evidence that there is a bias toward publishing findings showing a statistically significant negative employment effect.6 Finally, Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube, Michael Reich, and I found that studies using the most high-quality, credible research designs also found little to no employment effects.7 These findings taken together suggest that both the averagestudy as well as the best research show that there has been little downside to raising minimum wages.

While much of this research concentrates on the effects of the average or typical minimum wage increase in the United States, current research also suggests that even higher minimum wages have helped raise wages without reductions in employment. Doruk Cengiz, Arindrajit Dube, Attila Lindner, and I studied all major state-level minimum wage increases between 1979 and 2016 and found they significantly raised wages without reducing the employment of low-wage workers. Notably, we also found the same positive outcomes for even the highest minimum wages in our study.8Separately, important new scholarship by Ellora Derenoncourt and Claire Montialoux found that the highest minimum wages the United States has ever experienced—the minimum wages of the late 1960s—significantly raised wages without reducing the employment of low-wage workers.9

Because the evidence shows there has been little downside both to minimum wages in general and to minimum wages at their highest points in U.S. history, larger increases are economically justified. Modest and infrequent increases to the minimum wage leave money on the table that otherwise could have been earned by low-wage workers. In other words, by failing to enact bold increases in the minimum wage, we will have deprived low-wage workers of wage increases they could have had without costing them much in terms of reduced employment.10

The references cites above themselves have references for anyone wishing to dig in further. 

[MigL]

I think you miss Ricky's point, Dim.
It's not about industrious mouse, it's about lazy mouse.
What lesson does he learn ?
Will he/she repeat the same pattern next year ? And the year after ?
How do you learn that bad decisions have consequences if someone else is always bailing you out ?

And would the industrious mouse get the same pleasure from giving that lecture for the 5th year in a row ?

 

As for JC's point, many small businesses are owner operated. The owners work very hard, and very long hours, to expand and grow the business. As soon as they reach a certain point, where they need to hire additional help, they are often faced with an insurmountable situation, where the cost of wages, insurance, possible benefits, etc., are equivalent to two steps back fr that step forward. This is the point where most small businesses fail. 
By all means, increase minimum wages, but give small businesses the 'tools' to make the transition to 'hired help'.
This may not even be needed in metropolitan areas, but in small communities, where small business dominates, minimum wage increases can have detrimental effects.

And I don't see much evidence being presented that raising minimum wage has lifted any group out of near poverty, either.
Min wage increases do have an 'inflationary' pressure. And sometimes the wage increase doesn't make up for the inflationary effect, leaving things pretty much as they were. So while the increases may not reduce employment, as INow's study suggests, they may also not have much of an effect on changing people's economic status.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think you miss Ricky's point, Dim.
It's not about industrious mouse, it's about lazy mouse.
What lesson does he learn ?
Will he/she repeat the same pattern next year ? And the year after ?
How do you learn that bad decisions have consequences if someone else is always bailing you out ?

And would the industrious mouse get the same pleasure from giving that lecture for the 5th year in a row ?

What pleasure does the old man get from catching a fish he can't eat?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

As for JC's point, many small businesses are owner operated. The owners work very hard, and very long hours, to expand and grow the business. As soon as they reach a certain point, where they need to hire additional help, they are often faced with an insurmountable situation, where the cost of wages, insurance, possible benefits, etc., are equivalent to two steps back fr that step forward. This is the point where most small businesses fail. 
By all means, increase minimum wages, but give small businesses the 'tools' to make the transition to 'hired help'.

Such as the minimum wage not applying unless the businesses have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000? Yeah, that’s already the law.

Quote

And I don't see much evidence being presented that raising minimum wage has lifted any group out of near poverty, either.

After the minimum wage rose in 2009, there was a drop in the poverty rate in 2010, despite the horrible economy. And it continued to drop. But a lot of factors enter into this.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

 

Quote

Min wage increases do have an 'inflationary' pressure.

How much? Do you have data? 2010 inflation was just 1.5% 2009 was 2.7% Again, lots of factors in play.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would kill jobs?

 

You mentioned $200 an hour. Why? What evidence do you have that it would have a detrimental effect? Maybe because it is obvious at that level? Is it not equally obvious that a $15USD minimum wage would be detrimental in some countries

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

I’m trying to ascertain if this is true because it’s absurd, or simply an unsupported assertion. What’s the evidence that they won’t have jobs? 

By definition....unless you believe no level of minimum wage could have that effect.

Again, you mentioned $200, so you get it, do you not?

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Reducing hours of employees? You’ve presented no evidence of this. Not even taken a stab at an analysis. Just rhetoric.

Sorry. I've been busy explaining stuff you already understand. Simply because you are attacking what you think is my "rhetoric" rather than questioning my actual  argument.

"In the end, minimum wage hikes rob young people of the opportunity to gain work experience that helps them develop basic skills and earn higher levels of income. Indeed, research finds that earning the minimum wage is often a stepping stone to higher paid work.

But focusing solely on the employment numbers misses other negative effects from minimum wage hikes. Employers also respond by cutting back on hours, providing less on-the-job training, and giving employment priority to the most productive workers."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wage-increases-wont-solve-poverty#:~:text=Poverty can increase because minimum,young workers in the family.&text=While the more productive workers,result of fewer employment opportunities.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Probably because the evidence doesn’t support those talking points.

https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-testimony-feb-2019/

Because the evidence shows there has been little downside both to minimum wages in general and to minimum wages at their highest points in U.S. history, larger increases are economically justified. Modest and infrequent increases to the minimum wage leave money on the table that otherwise could have been earned by low-wage workers. 

Little downside. I wonder where that "little downside" occurs? Obviously not in some affluent areas, where McDonalds can just raise there prices as their competitors all do the same and deal with the same increases. Maybe McDonalds does get effected at the margins, and doesn't open that extra store in a less affluent area (but what evidence of that get's measured?)

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Probably because the evidence doesn’t support those talking points.

https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-testimony-feb-2019/

 In other words, by failing to enact bold increases in the minimum wage, we will have deprived low-wage workers of wage increases they could have had without costing them much in terms of reduced employment.10The references cites above themselves have references for anyone wishing to dig in further. 

So evidence of small minimum wage increases, which typically are adjustments to it being set too low, can be shown to have a net benefit (more positive than negative)...so bold increases must be even better?...what evidence is there for it? Where have bold increases been tried?

What is a bold increase? To me it is dictating $15USD an hour...right across the board...even if it's beneficial in some areas, and it would only represent a small increase in some areas.

Put it in place where an employee and employer can only deal with a lesser amount and you owe someone a job, and maybe someone a business....but you meant well so let them deal with that.

Often they have to go "underground" at least to some extent.

https://www.dw.com/en/minimum-wage-fuels-germanys-underground-economy/a-18231218

Experts warn of a resurgence in Germany's underground economy after years of contraction. A new study shows that the introduction of a nationwide minimum wage is driving more workers into the shadows.

Edited January 16, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Such as the minimum wage not applying unless the businesses have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000? Yeah, that’s already the law.

Sorry Swansont, not familiar with that law, as it doesn't exist in Canada ( Ontario ).
I did look up you claim, and while in Canada you can also get away with paying less than min wage for employees who derive a portion of their wages from tips, we don't seem to have the $500 000 cut-off that you guys have.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You mentioned $200 an hour. Why? What evidence do you have that it would have a detrimental effect? Maybe because it is obvious at that level? Is it not equally obvious that a $15USD minimum wage would be detrimental in some countries

I’m not talking about “some countries”

Why would other countries be paying their workers in US dollars?

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

By definition....unless you believe no level of minimum wage could have that effect.

Again, you mentioned $200, so you get it, do you not?

The job loss is your claim. Please don’t try to push the burden of proof onto me.

I mentioned a number, as I said, because yes, there is a point where nobody could afford to employ people. But you presented no evidence of what that level might be, or if the proposed increases are anywhere close to such a level. It’s not my burden to rectify the vagueness of your argument. 

 

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sorry. I've been busy explaining stuff you already understand. Simply because you are attacking what you think is my "rhetoric" rather than questioning my actual  argument.

I haven’t seen an argument. I’ve seen bald assertion.

 

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

In the end, minimum wage hikes rob young people of the opportunity to gain work experience that helps them develop basic skills and earn higher levels of income. Indeed, research finds that earning the minimum wage is often a stepping stone to higher paid work.

But focusing solely on the employment numbers misses other negative effects from minimum wage hikes. Employers also respond by cutting back on hours, providing less on-the-job training, and giving employment priority to the most productive workers.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wage-increases-wont-solve-poverty#:~:text=Poverty can increase because minimum,young workers in the family.&text=While the more productive workers,result of fewer employment opportunities.

 

That’s projection. Unemployment didn’t rise, despite increases in Sep 2017, Jun 2018 and Jun 2019. It trended down slightly.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/british_columbia_unemployment_rate

 

 

[MigL]

One other issue which needs consideration is the fact that immigrants from poorer nations are often willing to work 'under the table' for less than min wage. That would be consistent with JC's example of the German underground economy ( 20 years ago, East Germans, now, Turks ), and the $500 000 cutoff is possibly responsible for the large numbers of undocumented Latino gardeners, housekeepers and maids, in affluent American homes; those people are willing to work for less than min wage, and the government supplies them with an enabling loophole, and a steady stream of illegal ( as opposed to legal ) aliens.
The underground American economy attracts, and takes advantage of illegals. If everyone was required to pay min wage, I get the impression illegal immigrants would also decline.
( am I now going off topic, and back to the original OP, before it was split off ? )

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What pleasure does the old man get from catching a fish he can't eat?

I don't know; you introduced that analogy, not me, or Ricky.

Edited January 16, 2021 by MigL

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

undocumented Latino gardeners, housekeepers and maids, in affluent American homes; those people are willing to work for less than min wage

What choice do they have?

Against what choice do we have?

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not talking about “some countries”

Why would other countries be paying their workers in US dollars?

You wrote and quoted:

1 hour ago, swansont said:

  1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For the same reason poorer countries shouldn't set a minimum wage at 15 USD equivalent, which would quickly kill jobs. Obviously making marginal increases has a slower effect (good or bad, depending on whether it is already set too high or too low) but is it not clear that the optimum minimum wage is not one size fits all?

What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would “quickly kill jobs”?

 

 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

The job loss is your claim. Please don’t try to push the burden of proof onto me.

I mentioned a number, as I said, because yes, there is a point where nobody could afford to employ people. But you presented no evidence of what that level might be, or if the proposed increases are anywhere close to such a level. It’s not my burden to rectify the vagueness of your argument. 

 

Which was my point. I made no other assertion....

Why should I pick a number? I've clearly argued it shouldn't be the same everywhere. I simply made a point, which you seem to agree with...yet somehow have a problem with the way I made it.

 

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

 

That’s projection. Unemployment didn’t rise, despite increases in Sep 2017, Jun 2018 and Jun 2019. It trended down slightly.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/british_columbia_unemployment_rate

 

 

 

It did in some areas, and again, because the increases were probably reasonable, the net effect may have been positive.

 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

[dimreepr]

The old man just wanted to be lucky enough to have. 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Why should I pick a number? I've clearly argued it shouldn't be the same everywhere. I simply made a point, which you seem to agree with...yet somehow have a problem with the way I made it.

Will a ten-cent increase cause widespread job loss?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, swansont said:

Will a ten-cent increase cause widespread job loss?

I  doubt it.

That doesn't mean it will have no effect. You can't keep adding them on forever, inflation and economic growth notwithstanding.