Obviously, companies are concerned about the bottom line. I think that the "high end" (for lack of a better term) jobs seem to realize the importance of work-life balance and employee retention more than "low end" ones do. This doesn't have anything to do with minimum wage, though.

I was questioning that as well.

^^I should edit that to say "in America." New Zealand had minimum wage long before we did for example.

When it doesn't allow them to pay less, that means they're unemployed.

Unemployment is the problem as it further marginalizes minorities by making it difficult to acquire workplace skills as well as drops their income to zero.

Give them the ability to be unemployed, while gaining on the job experience and also possibly overcoming racism through interaction (ideally).

Possibly. But the mountains of recent evidence at least points to current time. Whether or not it has historically happened, doesn't really matter if the correlation is there now. Especially the ones where the increase in minimum wage increases minority unemployment, which shows correlation nearly every time.

Here's an example article:
http://epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=180

But there are alot more. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for y'all. While economics can't be absolutely established because of the human element that lies within, these theories are as close to it as possible.

If workers are interested in working in sweatshops, how is that a bad thing?

So what?

How does minimum wage not act as a barrier? If someone has absolutely no experience doing something, one could theoretically (without minimum wage) be hired for two or three dollars in order to gain experience needed. But, when minimum wage exists, this person would not be hired in order to gain said experience.

And another reference to racism is that within the unions. Many unions were established in South Africa to establish wage floors which kept out blacks. While I'm not saying that all unions act as such today, it is an easily understood example of the power of a wage floor in maintaining economic power status quo.

What is stopping someone who has no experience from being hired at minimum wage*? Almost all minimum wage jobs are entry level, so I'm not getting this argument.

*Think of this in "pre-recession" terms, as the state of the economy has obviously changed things.

I don't know....tell me what the unemployment rate is again?

So you're saying that there is absolutely no one looking for a job at the entry-level...

You're looking at it from a minimum wage prospective. Look at our unemployment rates. It's clear that something IS stopping someone with "no experience" to gain an entry-level job. What do you think that something is?

Isn't minimum wage the topic being discussed? :confused:

And when did I say that people aren't looking for entry level jobs?

I'm reading your argument as "if companies can't hire you for pennies, they won't hire you at all." This doesn't makes sense, since minimum wage existed pre-recession when our unemployment rate was much lower.

ETA: I think the thing that's stopping people from getting job is the influx of job seekers. People who are used to making well above minimum wage are scrambling trying to get minimum wage jobs, but the applicant pools have swelled. This is not an effect of minimum wage in and of itself.

If companies could pay, say, $3/hour to applicants, that doesn't mean that they'd hire more people. That just means they'd be getting cheap labor. That wouldn't have a massive effect on unemployment.

I think the assumption that employers will hire more people at lower wages instead of the same number of people at lower wages is an optimistic one on behalf of anti-minimum wage proponents.

EW if you're anti-minimum wage and anti-TANF and other welfare/entitlements... what are you going to do with someone who now might be working but doesn't make enough to eat? Or feed their kid? Or pay rent?

I highly recommend Morgan Spurlock's Minimum Wage episode of 30 days. As it is, a couple working on minimum wage can hardly support themselves assuming nothing bad happens. Then comes the ER bill for an infection or injury.

As he's pretty much a libertarian, I imagine he'd say that's not the government's problem.

Well that's why I was asking, so we let people starve? Kids starve? Bring back workhouses and mass orphanages? Debtor's prison? I don't get it. At all.

From a strictly economic perspective, artificial price ceilings and floors creates a dead weight loss in any market, even a labor market.

Not that I don't support a minimum wage. It just makes the market less efficient.

I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think from a libertarian perspective, it means letting people starve. It means that aid/welfare/assistance/whatever you want to call, is not the role of the government. Citizens and groups of citizens (churches, philanthropic organizations) should certainly be free to provide assistance, and even be encouraged (but not by the government) to do so. But it's something everyone should be free to contribute to or not, as they wish. It's the role of private citizens, not the government.

And if citizens and private charity do not provide, people starve? I really can't see any other conclusion.

My bad, I meant you're looking at it as if minimum wage is natural.

That would have to be your assumption to come to that conclusion.

I wouldn't read it as that because it makes no sense. I don't know what a company would hire for, but I would imagine it to be whatever the market equilibrium wage rate was.

Disagree, and here's why...

So you think that Wal-Mart wouldn't, for example, remove one person's 7.25 salary for two people's three dollar salary and have those two people be personal shoppers around the store or some such. I mean, this is getting theoretical...but you could vastly improve customer service if you could double the amount of people you had working in your store. Improved customer service could mean a great deal more business, etc. And companies wouldn't be getting "cheap labor" they would be getting whatever labor the market demands. Currently, there really aren't many people on minimum wage (relatively speaking), which means that companies AREN'T being cheap...when they certainly could be.

It is your assumption that it is an optimistic one. We have not seen it in practice, so we cannot say.

Well the government does a great deal to harm these things, so it would be partially their fault. This includes taxes on food, income, apartments, etc, etc. Food taxes especially are incredibly anti-poor. Obama broke his promises of not raising taxes on the middle class and the poor by raising the tobacco taxes, where cigarettes are overwhelmingly smoked by the poorer classes.

If we had more money to spend to create jobs, we would have more money to give to other people. I believe I am correct in saying that the United States is the most philanthropic nation in the world. Just imagine if we had more of that money in our pockets to spend correctly instead of massive waste by the government.

I absolutely hate Rush Limbaugh...hate hate hate. Ignorant and misguided. But he did say this. "If I knew that my taxes were going to the most needy and that it wasn't incredibly wasted by the government, I would ask for more taxes." That's sort of how I feel.

Watched it awhile back. Did it really have any affect on you?

"It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy."
- F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a menial job, but being paid low wages does not increase employee morale and would not positively impact customer service. Employees would be more concerned with "Wow. How am I going to pay rent when I'm spending all of my time here at $3/hr" and not "How can I make the next customer's visit more tolerable."

So, in essence, you'd have more pissed off people running around pissing off customers.

We have in fact seen it in practice. It was just long enough ago that the results are incomparable. Also when preface with "i think" a statement is naturally one's thought.


Poor people don't pay income tax *been there* there is not an apartment tax, but there are property taxes that the landlords have to pay. If we remove all food tax and tobacco taxes, now what? That's maybe 5-10% of food dollars returned, that's not making a huge difference in the long run unfortunately.

Hence the reason I made this post.

But we don't live in a perfect world run by a perfect government, so what do we do with the imperfect one we have?

Brought home exactly how on the edge people live even when working full time jobs. Right before i ended up in a very similar place myself, despite the fact that I still had the computers, phone, etc. all the trappings of having more money. It illustrates the point that the working poor are not being lazy, there simply is no way for all of them to get ahead. A relatively few make it, but that income gap is widening, not closing.

"How am I going to pay for the bus pass at $3/hr" even.

I just don't see how paying so little is anything but exploitation and why we should allow it.