Minimum wage/BUI (split from Immigration)

[swansont]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I  doubt it.

That would be why a number is needed

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

That would be why a number is needed

State where, and define "widespread job loss", and I'll hazard a guesstimate.

Then we can look at it, scratch our heads, or point and laugh at it, because it's not actually needed.

I already stated this:

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

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.

 

 I'll be happy to attempt to support that $15USD would be detrimental in many areas, without other significant changes to mitigate the damage.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

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

You should’ve read the link improved and not just the quoted part. Here’s another part which addresses this point above:

Quote

The benefits of a $15 minimum wage in 2024 for workers, their families, and their communities will far outweigh any potential costs of the policy. To gain a sense of the large improvements a $15 minimum wage by 2024 will make in the lives of low-income communities, we can turn to research by Arindrajit Dube on how minimum wages raise incomes for the poorest families. In a new article soon to be published in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Dube demonstrates that the income-raising effects of the minimum wage significantly reduce the number of Americans in families below the poverty line.11 In particular, if the U.S. had a $12 national minimum wage in place last year, there would be 6.2 million fewer individuals living in poverty. The resulting income gains and poverty reductions would be especially large for black and Hispanic families and for single mothers. We should expect similarly sized poverty-reducing effects of a $15 minimum wage in 2024, given that such a policy is equivalent to about $13 per hour in 2018 dollars, after adjusting for projected inflation.

 

[John Cuthber]

It's not that long since the UK introduced a minimum wage.
The Right wing (Tory) politicians all said it would kill jobs, crash the economy and lead to a plague of locusts etc.

You know- the things they always say will happen if you do something decent.

And it didn't happen.

On the other hand, if you have a minimum wage that's below the poverty line (and we have) then you have an interesting state of affairs.

A rich man sets up a factory. He buys raw materials and his workers make things.
He sells the things for more than the cost of raw materials (+ overheads) + minimum wages.
He pays the workforce minimum wage.
And, of course, as the owner of the  business, he draws a big fat salary from the profits.

 

Meanwhile, the government uses the taxes (which I pay) to top up the incomes of these workers.

But, if the factory had to pay enough that they staff didn't need state handouts, the company would go broke.
So the owner is being payed a lot- effectively from taxpayers like me- to run an uneconomic company.

If you set the minimum wage below the living wage, it's a way for rich people to syphon money out of the taxpayers.

Once they realised this, the Tories were very happy with it.


Be careful what you wish for...
 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

State where, and define "widespread job loss", and I'll hazard a guesstimate.

FFS, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED THIS!

Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's not that long since the UK introduced a minimum wage.
The Right wing (Tory) politicians all said it would kill jobs, crash the economy and lead to a plague of locusts etc.

You know- the things they always say will happen if you do something decent.

And it didn't happen.
 

Also in areas in the US that hiked their minimum wage, like Seattle, WA.

Which is why data >> think-tank projections

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

FFS, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED THIS!

Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs

FFS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT OR NOT?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

...because yes, there is a point where nobody could afford to employ people.

 

This should be a simple concept...except:

6 hours ago, swansont said:

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. 

...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

FFS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT OR NOT?

As I’ve tried to convey, you have to quantify it to draw a conclusion. Thus far you’ve refused to do 

 

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This should be a simple concept...except:

...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

In the US this often means it’s a lie, so yeah, kill lies about politics

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

As I’ve tried to convey, you have to quantify it to draw a conclusion. Thus far you’ve refused to do so.

 

!

Moderator Note

...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

 

Since in the US this is often synonymous with “lie,” yeah. Kill lies about political impacts.

As I've tried to convey....it depends on where, and what factors you are willing to put in place to mitigate the negatives.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

As I’ve tried to convey, you have to quantify it to draw a conclusion. Thus far you’ve refused to do so.

 

!

Moderator Note

...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

 

Since in the US this is often synonymous with “lie,” yeah. Kill lies about political impacts.

Fortunately I don't carry around that baggage. I realize it's Politics 101 for much of the US....for good reasons and bad, but most of the World hasn't taken the course.

So perhaps read what I'm saying rather than reading into it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As I’ve tried to convey, you have to quantify it to draw a conclusion. Thus far you’ve refused to do 

Since you're struggling with this and despite the fact you have refused to answer the where and defined "widespread job loss":

I'll still answer: I'm confident a minimum wage of $20/hr, in terms of 2020 USD (so don't claim inflation will mitigate even part of it), would trigger widespread job loss, right across a substantial part of the US, and trigger widespread  job losses. My estimate would be across a majority of the US. (I can provide a link if necessary, where yes, JC MacSwell makes that estimate)  Any of that making anyone think $15 must be anywhere close to universally optimal with me then (even for workers currently making less)...I don't know what to tell them. You're looking at substantial job losses and/or reduced hours, and/or retreat for many to an underground economy.

But you meant well...and those conservatives are dishonest.

Edited January 16, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since you're struggling with this and despite the fact you have refused to answer the where and defined "widespread job loss":

I'll still answer:

You’ll still do what you’re supposed to do. Fantastic. (You brought it up first. It’s not up to me to clarify what you meant; only you can do that)

 

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm confident a minimum wage of $20/hr, in terms of 2020 USD (so don't claim inflation will mitigate even part of it), would trigger widespread job loss, right across a substantial part of the US, and trigger widespread  job losses. My estimate would be across a majority of the US. (I can provide a link if necessary, where yes, JC MacSwell makes that estimate)  Any of that making anyone think $15 must be anywhere close to universally optimal with me then (even for workers currently making less)...I don't know what to tell them. You're looking at substantial job losses and/or reduced hours, and/or retreat for many to an underground economy.

But you meant well...and those conservatives are dishonest.

The next issue is what will trigger the job loss. Because people quitting a second job because they can make a living wage with only one job is not a bad outcome for workers.

[MigL]

Hey, I wanna join in the fun …
( and drag INow in also )

4 hours ago, iNow said:

We should expect similarly sized poverty-reducing effects of a $15 minimum wage in 2024, given that such a policy is equivalent to about $13 per hour in 2018 dollars, after adjusting for projected inflation.

Makes you wonder how they can project an inflation rate which will decrease the value of $15, by 15%, to $13 dollars, unless they think the min wage increase will increase inflation.
And that was the point I was making.
You raise minimum wage, which has the effect of increasing prices and inflation, so that in the end, the raise is almost all eaten away by inflation.
And you're hardly better off than you previously were.
Even though your income has been raised above that arbitrary number that the Government chooses to call the 'poverty line'.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You’ll still do what you’re supposed to do. Fantastic. (You brought it up first. It’s not up to me to clarify what you meant; only you can do that)

If you had pointed out in the physics section that a vehicle had a speed at which it could not maintain traction around a curve, I doubt I would have badgered you to tell me what specific speed without being willing to describe the curve and the coefficient of friction of the the road....despite you pointing out that the speed is not the same for every road curve in America... and even while agreeing with the statement.....and even if what I felt were a despicable group from Canada often claimed cars were safe at any speed...

...but maybe that's just me

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

The next issue is what will trigger the job loss. 

There's a point at which a deal cannot rationally take place...it has to work for both parties...in this case between employer and employee.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because people quitting a second job because they can make a living wage with only one job is not a bad outcome for workers.

Often that would be true. On topic can the difference be made up by a better mix of UBI with perhaps lower minimum wage, or adjusted for economic condition of each region?

My contention being that UBI would often help poorer regions more so than restricting deals between employees than employers.

Edited January 17, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

You raise minimum wage, which has the effect of increasing prices and inflation, so that in the end, the raise is almost all eaten away by inflation.

It seems to me that you may be accidentally conflating core inflation with headline inflation. People WILL be better off in daily life with a higher minimum wage even if core inflation rises. Millions of them will...

If, however, headline inflation rises as a result of increased wages, then you have a valid point, but nobody serious is proposing that. Milk prices won’t skyrocket because the accounting firm pays the janitor more. Higher wages do, however, lead to lower starvation and lower housing insecurity all while increasing overall economic output. That’s good for the small businesses you’re advocating for.

Sure, it’d be nice if employers would just pay people what they’re worth out of the kindness of their hearts, but it’d also be nice if sewage made good whiskey. Sadly, that’s just not how it works. 

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There's a point at which a deal cannot rationally take place...it has to work for both parties...in this case between employer and employee.

Not meaning to gang up on you here, but I too am curious what analysis you’ve done to identify that threshold (or what analysis you’ve read from others to reach this conclusion). 

Nobody disagrees there’s a threshold. You, however, seem to be suggesting we’re close to it and you’re using a WAG / gut feeling to support that stance. The rest of us though (at least me) are pointing to detailed studies showing that we’re no where near that point... Not. Even. Close.

$15/hr is $31,000/year... less than $25,000/yr after 20% income tax. The job losses you highlight so passionately would be focused in job markets which already experience extremely high churn anyway.

Yes, some businesses will suffer in the face of higher wage requirements. On net, however, the growth achievement from such a minimum wage change exceeds those losses rather significantly.  

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My contention being that UBI would often help poorer regions more so than restricting deals between employees than employers.

There’s definitely merit in the idea of a UBI being better than a minimum wage increase. However, UBI is not a political reality in the US right now. Minimum wage is, and so consequently that’s what we’re discussing. 

It’s a bit like me asking which is the cheapest pharmacy for me to go get a covid vaccine and instead of answering the actual question you spend several posts telling us universal healthcare is the smartest policy and I shouldn’t have to pay anything at all. Yeah, okay. I don’t disagree buddy, but we don’t have UHC in the USA right now... so, about that pharmacy cost question I actually asked?

UBI isn’t on the table right now. Minimum wage increases are. Let’s please remain focused there. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Nobody disagrees there’s a threshold. You, however, seem to be suggesting we’re close to it and you’re using a WAG / gut feeling to support that stance. The rest of us though (at least me) are pointing to detailed studies showing that we’re no where near that point... Not. Even. Close.

 

What makes you think I'm suggest that? Because I pointed out that there is in fact a threshold? (That was my only claim during most of this thread....and though as you say no one disagrees with it, I seemed to get plenty of flak for it) Or because now I've argued that $15/hr would be detrimental in substantial areas? 

Here is exactly the most that has been tried in real life. The minimum wages of each state:

State	2020 Minimum Wage	2021 Minimum Wage
Alabama	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)
Alaska	$10.19	$10.34
Arizona	$12.00	$12.15
Arkansas	$10.00	$11.00
California	$13.00	$14.00*
Colorado	$12.00	$12.32
Connecticut	$12.00	$13.00 (effective 8/1/21)
Delaware	$9.25	$10.25
Washington D.C.	$15.00	$15.00
Florida	$8.56	$10.00 (effective 9/30/21)
Georgia	$5.15 (Employers subject to Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage.)	$5.15 (Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage)
Hawaii	$10.10	$10.10
Idaho	$7.25	$7.25
Illinois	$10.00	$11.00
Indiana	$7.25	$7.25
Iowa	$7.25	$7.25
Kansas	$7.25	$7.25
Kentucky	$7.25	$7.25
Louisiana	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)
Maine	$12.00	$12.15
Maryland	$11.00	$11.75**
Massachusetts	$12.75	$13.50
Michigan	$9.65	$9.65
Minnesota	$10.00	$10.08***
Mississippi	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)
Missouri	$9.45	$10.30
Montana	$8.65	$8.75
Nebraska	$9.00	$9.00
Nevada	$8.00	$8.75 (effective 7/1/21)****
New Hampshire	$7.25)	$7.25
New Jersey	$11.00	$12.00*****
New Mexico	$9.00	$10.50
New York	$11.80	$12.50******
North Carolina	$7.25	$7.25
North Dakota	$7.25	$7.25
Ohio	$8.70	$8.80
Oklahoma	$7.25	$7.25
Oregon	$12.00	$12.75 (effective 7/1/21)******
Pennsylvania	$7.25	$7.25
Rhode Island	$10.50	$11.50
South Carolina	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)
South Dakota	$9.30	$9.45
Tennessee	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)	$7.25 (Federal, no state minimum)
Texas	$7.25	$7.25
Utah	$7.25	$7.25
Vermont	$10.96	$11.75
Virginia	$7.25	$9.50 (effective 5/1/21)
Washington	$13.50	$13.69
West Virginia	$8.75	$8.75
Wisconsin	$7.25	$7.25
Wyoming	$5.15 (Employers subject to Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the Federal minimum wage.)	$5.15 (Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage)

4 hours ago, iNow said:

 

$15/hr is $31,000/year... less than $25,000/yr after 20% income tax. The job losses you highlight so passionately would be focused in job markets which already experience extremely high churn anyway.

 

Congratulations on so clearly seeing one side of it. Now do the direct cost of the $31,000 to the employer. Don't forget employers payroll taxes, Workers Compensation, Health Insurance, and  don't forget all the statutory holidays that get paid but aren't actually worked. The real costs are well above $15/hr, without even getting to other overhead and support for the wage earner, including the costs of the brick and mortar.

Look again at the current minimum wages. You can't provide data for trying anything higher in those states. Even most of your optimistic projections are based on more reasonable increases than moving everything to $15. 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Yes, some businesses will suffer in the face of higher wage requirements. On net, however, the growth achievement from such a minimum wage change exceeds those losses rather significantly.  

 

To $15 per hour? From the current $7.25 in many States?(40 % of them) From the current less than $10 in the majority of States? (70% of them) Where is your evidence for this?

4 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s definitely merit in the idea of a UBI being better than a minimum wage increase. However, UBI is not a political reality in the US right now. Minimum wage is, and so consequently that’s what we’re discussing. 

It’s a bit like me asking which is the cheapest pharmacy for me to go get a covid vaccine and instead of answering the actual question you spend several posts telling us universal healthcare is the smartest policy and I shouldn’t have to pay anything at all. Yeah, okay. I don’t disagree buddy, but we don’t have UHC in the USA right now... so, about that pharmacy cost question I actually asked?

UBI isn’t on the table right now. Minimum wage increases are. Let’s please remain focused there. 

You might want to check the title of the thread.

Edited January 17, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now do the direct cost of the $31,000 to the employer.

No. We agree some employers will suffer. The data suggests, however, there will be a net gain in jobs due to the change to $15/hr. 

It’s unclear to me what point you’re trying to make.

It’s been acknowledged already that there’s some threshold at which continued increases in the wage floor will do more harm than good to overall employment. You’ve been asked where that threshold is. That question has repeatedly gone unanswered. You seem to think $15 is at or near that point, but have been decidedly evasive and cagey in answering it head on, so it’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding you. I’m trying to understand you better and need your partnership to do so.

Will you please clarify in one or two sentences where your concern is specifically, around what hourly wage is too high (and move away from the vague claims about which we all already agree that there’s “some threshold” above which wage increases result in unacceptable job loss)?

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You might want to check the title of the thread.

Fair enough. That’s not where the discussion has been for most of the thread, though.

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where is your evidence for this?

I haven’t been putting links and quotes into my posts merely as decoration, you know. Perhaps consider reviewing them and their citations.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please clarify in one or two sentences where your concern is specifically, around what hourly wage is too high (and move away from the vague claims about which we all already agree that there’s “some threshold” above which wage increases result in unacceptable job loss)?

He's afraid of not catching a fish, he can't eat.

It's strange how our economy is flexible enough to pay for a war, yet we flounder when it comes to feeding our own people.

[iNow]

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'll still answer: I'm confident a minimum wage of $20/hr, in terms of 2020 USD (so don't claim inflation will mitigate even part of it), would trigger widespread job loss, right across a substantial part of the US, and trigger widespread  job losses. My estimate would be across a majority of the US.

I realize you already answered my question here. Now, is this just an opinion... a WAG, as it seems to be? Or, is there analysis we can review that supports it?

I ask because your personal confidence has zero to do with the numbers potential validity. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s been acknowledged already that there’s some threshold at which continued increases in the wage floor will do more harm than good to overall employment. You’ve been asked where that threshold is.

I think JC is suggesting that the threshold is different for different States.
While $15/hr might not be a job killer in States like Washington or California, it definitely might be in the States which have State min wages set below the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25/hr.
He even posted a nice overview of State min wages. to emphasize the point.
( thanks BTW )

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think JC is suggesting that the threshold is different for different States.
While $15/hr might not be a job killer in States like Washington or California, it definitely might be in the States which have State min wages set below the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25/hr.
He even posted a nice overview of State min wages. to emphasize the point.
( thanks BTW )

The threshold is ultimately arbitrary, what is the cost of war?

You may as well ask, what is the cost of life?

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The threshold is ultimately arbitrary, what is the cost of war?

That might well be the case, and I would agree with you, but it's a topic for a different thread.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

That might well be the case, and I would agree with you, but it's a topic for a different thread.

Perhaps, but I have enough to eat in this one...

 

I just wish you had Markus' eloquence. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

the threshold is different for different States.

And that’s still possible. They’re welcome to go anywhere above the federal minimum they want.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, see the link I shared, specifically:

Quote

By 2024, in areas all across the United States, even a single adult with no children will need to be earning more than $15 per hour on a full-time, full-year basis in order to achieve a modest but adequate standard of living. My colleagues at EPI have developed the Family Budget Calculator to delineate how much a family will need to earn every year in order to pay for housing, food, transportation, child care, health care, taxes, and other necessities.12

Earning at least $15 per hour will be a necessity for parents who wish to raise families. Two adults working 40 hours a week at $15 per hour will earn $62,400 per year. If these two adults have two children to care for, by 2024 there will be no area in the country where they can live and meet the basic requirements of their family budget with wage income alone.13

Yes, some states will feel the impact more than others, but the people living in those states also need to be able to survive and eat. 

We can make all the fiscal and economic arguments we want, but for me this (much like universal healthcare) is a moral issue, not a money one. The plantation owners also didn’t want to start paying their slaves and several couldn’t sustain themselves when slavery ended. Too bad. It was the right thing to do, just like this is. 

[MigL]

And JC is trying to explain that, a hypothetical min wage of $15/hr is of no use in raising your family, if you don't have a job.

Hence he's pushing  a BUI.
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I think JC is suggesting that the threshold is different for different States.
While $15/hr might not be a job killer in States like Washington or California, it definitely might be in the States which have State min wages set below the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25/hr.
He even posted a nice overview of State min wages. to emphasize the point.
( thanks BTW )

Thank You

I was starting to feel like a broken record

On 1/15/2021 at 10:07 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

 

On 1/16/2021 at 10:31 AM, 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?

The point is there is a need to strike a balance, and that the factors that effect it are not the same everywhere.

 

On 1/16/2021 at 12:34 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

.

Why should I pick a number? I've clearly argued it shouldn't be the same everywhere.

 

 

On 1/16/2021 at 12:34 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

 

 

 

On 1/16/2021 at 2:18 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

 I'll be happy to attempt to support that $15USD would be detrimental in many areas, without other significant changes to mitigate the damage.

 

23 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As I've tried to convey....it depends on where, and what factors you are willing to put in place to mitigate the negatives.

 

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...despite the fact you have refused to answer the where and defined "widespread job loss":

 

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

,,, I've argued that $15/hr would be detrimental in substantial areas? 

 

Look again at the current minimum wages. You can't provide data for trying anything higher in those states. Even most of your optimistic projections are based on more reasonable increases than moving everything to $15. 

To $15 per hour? From the current $7.25 in many States?(40 % of them) From the current less than $10 in the majority of States? (70% of them) Where is your evidence for this?

 

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

but for me this is a moral issue, not a money one.

It is a moral issue, that recognizes the realities of fiscal and economic situations.