Biden and the $15 minimum wage

[JayTony]

Inow, I did not intend to offer evidence in a casual discussion. When I read the OP and the exchanges between members about minimum wage I inferred since one member started sentences with " I think....", another offered questions which you answered ,as I interpret as casual answers, and another offered " I don't like.....". I try to chose my words carefully. As I investigated this site 'SFN' there was an invitation to join on my screen. There were no limitations such as  credentials. I am not a scientist. While I intend to obey the guidelines if I, or any member begins a sentence with " I believe" or "I think", it does not mean they are ignorant as to proper posting in a scientific discussion. I see the "I believe" as a signal someone is offering an opinion and not offering evidence as argument. I understand and accept your criticism. I tried to cut and paste the one paragraph to explain my post but ended up with a very, very long image in my documents. I'm not offering ignorance as evidence. If there is an argument I withdraw. One point: you also edited the article and posted "more than $11" instead of the Wikipedia's opinion. I suspect you as many don't trust Wikipedia as being 'gospel'. "I believe" this will remain my longest post ever offered at SFN.🤓

Edited March 22, 2021 by JayTony

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, JayTony said:

One point: you also edited the article and posted "more than $11" instead of the Wikipedia's opinion.

I’m unclear what you’re trying to say in this sentence. Will you please say it again another way so I can respond accordingly? 

 

21 minutes ago, JayTony said:

I suspect you as many don't trust Wikipedia as being 'gospel'.

I don’t trust anything as gospel, but wiki is itself extremely likely to be correct in most cases and it’s reliability had nothing whatsoever to do with my previously offered criticism. 

[JayTony]

On 3/22/2021 at 4:20 PM, iNow said:

I’m unclear what you’re trying to say in this sentence. Will you please say it again another way so I can respond accordingly? 

 

I don’t trust anything as gospel, but wiki is itself extremely likely to be correct in most cases and it’s reliability had nothing whatsoever to do with my previously offered criticism. 

Responding: My point was trivial. It would be better to continue on topic but it seems 'minimum wage' has fallen out of the news cycle and is recessed here as well. I expect interest will return in due time.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JayTony said:

it seems 'minimum wage' has fallen out of the news cycle and is recessed here as well.

Not from my news feeds. I reckon you must follow different sources. 

[iNow]

Speaking of...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/24/minimum-wage-economic-research-job-loss/

Quote

No, a $15 minimum wage won’t cost 1.4 million jobs
<...>
CBO’s report examines only 11 studies … Its sources include the first University of Washington study but not the follow-up that came to a more positive conclusion … changed its formula for summarizing the literature since … 2019 … Then, it looked at the median … This time, it placed more weight on those that found large job losses.

The 2019 [CBO] report was already somewhat out of step with the latest academic research, but the new one is even more so.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844350/impacts_of_minimum_wages_review_of_the_international_evidence_Arindrajit_Dube_web.pdf

Quote

Overall the most up-to-date body of research from US, UK and other developed countries points to a very muted effect of minimum wages on employment, while significantly increasing the earnings of low-paid workers. Importantly, this was found to be the case even for the most recent ambitious policies. Therefore, it concludes that, based on the overall weight of the available evidence, there is room for exploring a more ambitious NLW remit in the UK in the coming years, in the range of 60 percent to two-thirds of median hourly earnings. However, given that the evidence base is still developing, it would also be prudent to accompany more ambitious minimum wages with a clear mandate that the Low Pay Commission can use to implement, evaluate and recalibrate any proposed changes to the NLW, thereby designing in responsiveness to any unforeseen impacts if required.

 

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

Everybody is talking here of a 15-$-minimum wage as though it were a Huge step towards returning the amassed wealth @ the hands of 1% of US population to the lowest of lowest Americans . . .. . .  Gosh  !!

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Everybody is talking here of a 15-$-minimum wage as though it were a Huge step towards returning the amassed wealth @ the hands of 1% of US population to the lowest of lowest Americans . . .. . .  Gosh  !!

Thanks for bold underlining your goalpost move, but at a certain point, you need to acknowledge that any step in the right direction is a good step.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

How has the fact that Scandinavia pays $20/hr for fast food workers not eliminated all hesitation at raising the minimum wage at least to 15? Surely, if nothing else, it has discredited the notion that hiring these employees wouldn't be profitable at those wages...

[swansont]

Scandinavia isn’t a country

https://checkinprice.com/average-and-minimum-salary-in-stockholm-sweden/

Sweden does not have an official minimum salary. Minimum salaries are generally negotiated through workers’ unions.

As a reference, the salary for a McDondald’s cashier is hovering around 101 to 125 Swedish Krona, or roughly 15 USD per hour.

 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

...you know what I mean. Unionization discredits the "if we had to pay them that much money we'd just fire them" notion just as severely as a minimum wage would. Whether because of unionization or because of a minimum wage, employers are still forced to pay more than they would otherwise.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

you know what I mean

No, in fact, I don’t. You need to mean what you say, and not put the burden of parsing it to people reading. 

What you claimed to be true is not true in Sweden, and therefore not true in Scandinavia. So you presented a falsehood, which makes it difficult to understand what you mean.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, in fact, I don’t. You need to mean what you say, and not put the burden of parsing it to people reading. 

What you claimed to be true is not true in Sweden, and therefore not true in Scandinavia. So you presented a falsehood, which makes it difficult to understand what you mean.

The broad outline of my point applies almost as well to Sweden as it does to Denmark, just not quite as well. If Danes can make $20/hr providing fast food services, and Danes can make $15/hr, then it borders on slander to assume that the Americans paid less than that are being "paid what they're worth." Their employers can clearly pay more than that and still make a profit if forced to, just not as exorbitant a profit.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The broad outline of my point applies almost as well to Sweden as it does to Denmark, just not quite as well. If Danes can make $20/hr providing fast food services, and Danes can make $15/hr, then it borders on slander to assume that the Americans paid less than that are being "paid what they're worth." Their employers can clearly pay more than that and still make a profit if forced to, just not as exorbitant a profit.

What do you mean, by profit?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What do you mean, by profit?

As in, how much extra money the business makes from revenue after all their expenses are accounted for. I figured that would be obvious.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The broad outline of my point applies almost as well to Sweden as it does to Denmark, just not quite as well. If Danes can make $20/hr providing fast food services, and Danes can make $15/hr, then it borders on slander to assume that the Americans paid less than that are being "paid what they're worth." Their employers can clearly pay more than that and still make a profit if forced to, just not as exorbitant a profit.

It would depend on the cost of living, wouldn’t it? It’s more expensive to live in Denmark; you might conclude that wages would be necessarily be higher there for similar jobs

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living

[ScienceNostalgia101]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It would depend on the cost of living, wouldn’t it? It’s more expensive to live in Denmark; you might conclude that wages would be necessarily be higher there for similar jobs

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I thought your only qualm was with me generalizing about Scandinavia or extrapolating union pressure results to regulation. At least now we have something that could theoretically apply just as much to regulation as to unions.

 

Anyway, if it raises the cost of living, so be it. I get paid more to sit on my ass at my job than these people are paid to cook on their feet. I'm not entitled to a lower cost of living at the expense of putting people who work harder than I do into poverty.

 

But even if that is what this is about, the people objecting to a $15/hr minimum wage should just say so outright, instead of pretending a wage hike would get these workers fired.

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I thought your only qualm was with me generalizing about Scandinavia or extrapolating union pressure results to regulation. At least now we have something that could theoretically apply just as much to regulation as to unions.

 

Anyway, if it raises the cost of living, so be it. I get paid more to sit on my ass at my job than these people are paid to cook on their feet. I'm not entitled to a lower cost of living at the expense of putting people who work harder than I do into poverty.

 

But even if that is what this is about, the people objecting to a $15/hr minimum wage should just say so outright, instead of pretending a wage hike would get these workers fired.

That wasn’t really the point; you can’t compare two countries without normalizing the numbers for cost of living, and other factors. In Denmark, $20/hr is a living wage because of the cost of living and their social safety net. In the US, $15 might be. 

“Scandinavia pays $20/hr for fast food workers not eliminated all hesitation at raising the minimum wage at least to 15?” lacks that context. There are undoubtedly countries where $15 would be higher than the cost of living.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

But the point wasn't about how high fast food wages "needed" to be, it was about how high they "could" be. If fast food companies, after all their other expenditures, can still afford to pay $15/hr and still turn a profit in Sweden, they can do so in the USA. Being on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't change the way the same fast food company's food is made.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But the point wasn't about how high fast food wages "needed" to be, it was about how high they "could" be. If fast food companies, after all their other expenditures, can still afford to pay $15/hr and still turn a profit in Sweden, they can do so in the USA. Being on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't change the way the same fast food company's food is made.

No. But being in different geographical areas does make for different markets for that food, and along with other factors the ability to pay for that labour.

 

7 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

...you know what I mean. Unionization discredits the "if we had to pay them that much money we'd just fire them" notion just as severely as a minimum wage would. Whether because of unionization or because of a minimum wage, employers are still forced to pay more than they would otherwise.

If you're paying attention, it does and it doesn't. Even "successful" unions, that allow the company to remain competitive, can limit available jobs to some extent to the advantage of their members.

Good luck unionizing a company that doesn't have a natural (or otherwise) advantage to exploit, and then maximizing wages.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But the point wasn't about how high fast food wages "needed" to be, it was about how high they "could" be. If fast food companies, after all their other expenditures, can still afford to pay $15/hr and still turn a profit in Sweden, they can do so in the USA. Being on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't change the way the same fast food company's food is made.

That does not follow. Costs are different. Math matters.

You’re basically saying a burger that costs $5.66 vs $6.37 isn’t a factor in turning a profit.

(cost of a Big Mac in Sweden vs USA) https://www.statista.com/statistics/274326/big-mac-index-global-prices-for-a-big-mac/

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Fair enough, then, I wasn't expecting them to charge differently for the same products.

 

But even by swansont's own ratio, that still makes the case for at least $13/hr, which is significantly more than the $7.25 the US currently federally has.

 

Of course, Biden campaigned on more than that. Either there is a net economic benefit to raising it further than that, or there is a net political detriment to opposing that, even when corporate donors to political campaigns have a vested interest in paying their employees less.

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But the point wasn't about how high fast food wages "needed" to be, it was about how high they "could" be. If fast food companies, after all their other expenditures, can still afford to pay $15/hr and still turn a profit in Sweden, they can do so in the USA. Being on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't change the way the same fast food company's food is made.

What businesses can and cannot afford to pay people seems to monopolizes wage discussions in the media. Some point to wealthy people owning $100 million estates as proof there is plenty of money to go around while other insist the cost of higher wages will seemly be passed on to consumers. Such discussion ignores other key factors. Three of those factors that come to my mind are: Govt's cost, impact of economy as a whole, competitiveness among the market place.

Govt costs. The more one earns the more taxes they pay. Not merely federal income and Soc Sec but local taxes as well. People who earn more also generally tend to spend more and numerous taxes are attached to consumption. So govts from local municipalities up benefit from residents who earn more money. With the right leadership that can translates into better infrastructure, public education, policing, parks, etc. On the flip side low income residents are very expensive for govts. Lower income residents are less like to invest in the community, more likely to require public assistance services, etc. Every business with low watch employees whom need govt assisted food, house, healthcare, etc programs is basically using those govt programs to supplement their (businesses) low pay.

Impact on the economy. Consumer Spending is 70% of GDP in the U.S.. That is why stimulus is so broadly accepted across party lines. Both major parties engage in various types of stimulus packages whenever the economy slows. People having money to spend, even if that money creates debt, is the most reliable way to lift the economy. Having enough to buy homes, cars, clothes, dine out, etc spurs economic growth. The same Restaurant that may not want to pay their employees $15hr would arguable have more costumers overall if everyone in their community made at least $15hr.

Competitiveness among the market place. By favoring business cost related arguments over those of voters Politicians run the risk artificially subsidizing a non-competitive business at the expense of their constituents. The govt has a role in ensuring markets are fair helping the economy where they can. Propping up certain business over others or the will voters isn't that role. In a market place where residents support and vote to have $15hr business unable to compete at that salary point will be replaced by ones who can in theory. Especially if consumer spending grows along with the increase in wages.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

What businesses can and cannot afford to pay people seems to monopolizes wage discussions in the media. Some point to wealthy people owning $100 million estates as proof there is plenty of money to go around while other insist the cost of higher wages will seemly be passed on to consumers. Such discussion ignores other key factors. Three of those factors that come to my mind are: Govt's cost, impact of economy as a whole, competitiveness among the market place.

Govt costs. The more one earns the more taxes they pay. Not merely federal income and Soc Sec but local taxes as well. People who earn more also generally tend to spend more and numerous taxes are attached to consumption. So govts from local municipalities up benefit from residents who earn more money. With the right leadership that can translates into better infrastructure, public education, policing, parks, etc. On the flip side low income residents are very expensive for govts. Lower income residents are less like to invest in the community, more likely to require public assistance services, etc. Every business with low watch employees whom need govt assisted food, house, healthcare, etc programs is basically using those govt programs to supplement their (businesses) low pay.

Impact on the economy. Consumer Spending is 70% of GDP in the U.S.. That is why stimulus is so broadly accepted across party lines. Both major parties engage in various types of stimulus packages whenever the economy slows. People having money to spend, even if that money creates debt, is the most reliable way to lift the economy. Having enough to buy homes, cars, clothes, dine out, etc spurs economic growth. The same Restaurant that may not want to pay their employees $15hr would arguable have more costumers overall if everyone in their community made at least $15hr.

Competitiveness among the market place. By favoring business cost related arguments over those of voters Politicians run the risk artificially subsidizing a non-competitive business at the expense of their constituents. The govt has a role in ensuring markets are fair helping the economy where they can. Propping up certain business over others or the will voters isn't that role. In a market place where residents support and vote to have $15hr business unable to compete at that salary point will be replaced by ones who can in theory. Especially if consumer spending grows along with the increase in wages.

In "theory", that's dependant on favourable business conditions. You force unemployment on many who would not have moved on otherwise and they are scooped up by better options. In "practice" you can also create a situation where you have businesses folding and a local economy collapsing like a house of cards, creating less incentive for any replacement start ups.

 

Edit:That's referring to what I bolded at the bottom of Ten Oz's post.

[CashlinRap]

On 4/5/2021 at 11:04 AM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Everybody is talking here of a 15-$-minimum wage as though it were a Huge step towards returning the amassed wealth @ the hands of 1% of US population to the lowest of lowest Americans . . .. . .  Gosh  !!

This is like, the most crudely expressed post here but actually brings up a pretty good point. Over all billionaires and people in their wealth and luxurious lifestyle cult are strongarming everyone into accepting that the system we have where people die of starvation and are overworked to make ends meet is totally awesome and the way to solve it is to mitigate our losses via indirect ways to improve society (but I'm not saying it's wrong at all to push for higher minimum wage, it's actually pretty direct and the right approach)

I guess what I'm saying is in an older civilization we might have had different ways of solving the problem that I suppose I'm not necessarily smart enough to know how you could come close to performing nowadays but the office space superman 3 thing is always sitting there making me wonder if someone could pull it off

 

 

As far as biden goes, I think he's light years better than the last guy. I also think he's likely an oily snake sack of shit like most of his peers and it really fucking sucks he was basically the only option the whole time, and the whole concept that the US is an oligarchy that needs to be restructured or dissolved seems pretty on point. 

Someone in this thread mentioned that voting on bills to pass is tricky because unrelated shit gets thrown in and that's totally true and I should acknowledge that here since I seem like I think public servants are huge assholes so far (ironic) With the amount of time that's passed with biden in office, it's been pretty good. but the migrant situation is still fucked, lots of centrists/diet fascists are really excited about images of the facilities that were actually dated from the last guy, and incidents like this are of course always happening and i guess i'm repeating myself going into how we have a lot of cultural problems bla bla bla. so ultimately yeah, politicians god they suck, yeah some of them really are doing better and get smeared when theyre trying their best, but actually they really still suck, and maybe we should've had a lot of the stuff we are still debating eons ago. oh well, i'll stay optimistic and things seem to be improving slowly 

 

i guess to be specific, i'm pretty pissed that kamala was talking about retroactive stimulus before the election and now of course we're hoodwinked and she hasnt mentioned it again. i shouldn't have ever expected anything different but it's just like damn, really ? 

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, CashlinRap said:

i'm pretty pissed that kamala was talking about retroactive stimulus before the election and now of course we're hoodwinked and she hasnt mentioned it again. i shouldn't have ever expected anything different but it's just like damn, really ?

You might be forgetting that Congress writes legislation, not the executive branch. Biden and Kamala will support and sign it if it passed, that’s all.