America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Jeez - How many people work for him?

If another $110 a week per person would kill his business, he doesn’t have much of a business. $110 a week sounds more like a bar tab than a raise . . .

kindly don't "interpret". you lower the level of the argument to something I would expect from the tea partiers.


http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/June97/Landon.pdf -Canada estimating a 0.7% drop in high school enrollment per 0.5$ increase in minimum wage

http://labor.bnu.edu.cn/resource/jee/0302/Minimum%20wages%20and%20school%20enrollment.pdf
Higher minimum wage reduce teen enrollment in states where they can drop out.

http://labor.bnu.edu.cn/resource/jee/0302/Minimum%20wages%20and%20skill%20acquisition.pdf
Same, minimum wage reduces the proportion of teenagers in school

http://ftp.iza.org/dp1428.pdf
"The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20’s, they earn less and may also
work less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage. In particular, exposure during one’s
teenage years imposes longer-run costs, presumably because minimum wages are most likely to be
binding during those years. Furthermore, the adverse longer-run effects of facing high minimum wages
as a teenager are stronger for blacks and for those who do not complete high school, again presumably
reflecting the greater extent to which minimum wages are binding for these groups. Thus, we obtain a
robust finding of negative longer-run effects of minimum wages, and the pattern of variation in these
effects is consistent with expectations based on the degree to which minimum wages are binding. "

This isn't hard information to find.

Of course I'm being pedantic. You're acting as a child might, just saying you want something because you think it would be nice, without thinking of the consequences. You consistently ignore my suggestions that this may have unintended consequences. Hell, you probably still haven't looked up a demand curve, the most basic concept in economics. That's like trying to have a chemistry conversation without understanding valence electrons.

He said he'd lay off 1/2 of his employees.
$110 is the direct cost of a single employee getting a raise to $10/hr.

Multiply that by the number of employees.
Then there's the FICA taxes on the additional $110/person (that's about $8.5/person)
Social Security and Medicare employer contribution (about $8/person)
State and Federal unemployment taxes (unknown).
So you're looking at minimum $126/person/week.

That's an additional $6300 minimum added to the employers costs PER PERSON. There's a lot you can do with $500 per month.

Did you read it?
These are not opinion. This is statistical regression. It isn't hard science, BUT it is as rigorous as any of the social sciences get. If you're going to discard these as "opinion" then I can eliminate all social programs and say there is no evidence that it helps anything. Hell, I could repeal all gas taxes and say they don't have an impact on usage or fuel economy.

Unless you're going to read them and argue the merits of the research, then you aren't worth talking to any longer.

And you are horrendously naive to think that ANY change can have no effect. Hell, I didn't even say it was a bad effect. People dropping out of school early or NOT getting a college education isn't necessarily BAD.

I'm glad you don't build rockets... what you're talking about is the equivalent of adding more weight without taking into account the additional fuel burn.

It's a thing. I do not think we should do it, because I believe the unintended consequences will be greater than any positive benefits it may have (as identified in the studies above).

That doesn't make it good or bad. Some will benefit, some will suffer. To call that "good" or "bad" is to imply that you know for a fact the net result will be positive (the number of "good" people benefiting and "bad" people suffering will outweigh the number of "good" people suffering and "bad" people benefiting.)

You seem to believe that there will be no negative repercussions, which is a wrong and dangerous opinion to have no matter what.

I've provided you with ample evidence that there are negative repercussions. Some of the studies have actually shown on some level the negative repercussions outweigh the positive.

You seem to just want to do these things out of some desire to care for the poor. However "caring" doesn't actually count for anything in these cases, especially when it has to be translated into bureaucratic government policies.

So now we are down to cases.

There are always negative effects to anything. That is a truism. But you have juxtaposed that less people might graduate high school as opposed to people being lifted out of poverty. Or at least getting a greater measure of decent life.

Now I know that this seems strange and unfathomable, but without for further "statistical regression" the right thing to do would be obvious to any man. With a moral compass that is. Or at least one who understands that the shrewdest thing we can do is to make sure that most everyone has spending money to further the economy. And that sir is good economics.

And screw your regression, personal or otherwise.

but what about the peoples on the Welfare.. do they get a raise too..??

Numerically higher wages does not automatically translate to greater purchasing power. There are two parties effected by an increase in minimum wage. The employer and the employee. You are only viewing this through the eyes of an employee and don't take into consideration the impact such an increase will have on the employer. An increase in the minimum wage will automatically raise an employers labor cost. If you think most employers are just going to sit there and take this on the chin without any reaction then you are extremely naive. A few things will happen. The value of some people's labor simply won't meet/exceed the cost of a new minimum wage. They will be priced out of work and will have less opportunity to grow. Other companies may be able to afford 10 employee's at $7.25/hr but at $10/hr they may only be able to afford 6. Thats four people that go right to the unemployment line and again its less opportunity to gain additional work skills to earn a wage increase on merit.

It is not a lack of a minimum wage increase that is hurting the working poor. Its the lack of good paying jobs available because our government promotes and the Federal Reserve enables a debt/service economy. If you really want to help the poor and make their money go further you would support sound money policies like raising interest rates and shutting off the printing press. Artificially low interest rates and money printing further proliferate our debt and encourage a service economy that yields low paying jobs. Just raising minimum wage is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

Jack Sparrow had a funky compass.

But here's the problem, Brew... you seem to think that more people will be lifted out of poverty ("or a least getting a greater measure of decent life") than will be harmed by the reduced education demands. Yet you never even considered the possibility that it could occur until yesterday. You never analyzed it, you just waved your hands and said it's the morally good thing to do.

But what if the observed 0.7% drop in high school enrollment per 0.5$ increase in minimum wage observed in canada is real? that means an increase of $2.5 will increase drop-out rates by 3.5%. That's about 115,000 students per year who WOULD have gotten a high school education, but now won't because of your policy. Every one of them will be stuck in the lowest rung of employment opportunities. You may make that rung 20k/year, but they aren't going to go anywhere up from there. Your decision destroyed any successful future those 115,000 kids on the margin may have had. And you're sure it's worth it?

It's awfully ballsy to be willing to bet these kids future like that, and to say its the morally good thing to do.

Those who can, do; those who can't, vote democrat.

Reality slap.

How many people make minimum wage? I'd say quite a few.
Now, how many of those are HOH (Head of Household) and work full time making minimum and have no other source of income or assistance?
The number is staggeringly low.
Will it help a few families? Sure.
But in the process it will cripple businesses everywhere. Many Small business will close their doors. Medium sized companies will have lay-offs and hiring freezes. Big corporations will move out of the country. Inflation on consumables will explode.
But gosh darn it, we have to be fair.

To simply raise wages on a feel good whim is a terribly ignorant knee-jerk reaction. But of course, that's why our politicians are propping it up there for consideration.

Or maybe these medium sized business owners could share their income. Years go by without people getting raises even when profits are increasing so why do they get a pass. Labor is what used to run this country and now it's lazy business men who inflate prices of labor so they can earn a living doing nothing. Let's pay for our labor instead of screwing them over every year.

I see how the businessman wants his profit margins to not change but suck it up and deal with it cause what is fair is that you give back to the hard working employees that earn your income for you.

Tail, while I don't disagree with you, I think you need to recognize that the argument you're trying to make is never going to be successful. Some individuals look at any business owner/CEO as automatically evil and the foil to the hard working poor. To talk about the impact a raise in the minimum wage will have on business is an argument they will just brush away with a "whatever, they deserve it".

This is why I think it is important to focus on the other unintended consequences of a fixed minimum price for labor. Some of these consequences are pretty severe when you consider the lifetime costs of being uneducated.

For the record, we DO have tons of people operating businesses. See the data I had from the SBA earlier. A large number of businesses in the US are sole proprietorships, single employee businesses.

Ok maybe my wording or the way I tried to get my point across was a little arrogant but the point is not. It is not like they are saying minimum wage needs to be a 100% increase, we are talking from $8 to $10 which is what 22.5%. Not sure when the last minimum wage increase was but I do know that the courts use 10% every 3 years as the raise in cost of living anyone paying child support should know that. Now not sure if 10% is a perfect number or where they got it from but that is what they use and it sounds fair if not on the low end anymore. So if it has been 6 years or longer that would mean they should receive a 20% raise just to keep pace with the cost of living or they will be left behind. Which puts us to the amount of money that we are talking about raising the minimum wage.

So my point is if its ok with you to leave people behind then so be it but I just don't see that as being the answer to fixing this place we live in.

I think people who hire illegals should be put in jail.
I think most unions are useless and serve no purpose other than to put money into the union boss pocket.
Unions reward tenure over ability. They stymie ambition, unless the ambition is to become the next union boss.
And I've softened on this subject somewhat, because I believe certain trade unions still perform vital functions through mandatory training programs, etc.

Most people who are self employed have a boss with that same character flaw...

Some interesting data on that:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/

It only represents 2.8% of the entire workforce... and really, we're only talking about raising minimum wage for 1.4% of the workforce, as the other chunk is exempt (waitstaff/bartenders/disabled/student)....

Of that 2.8% of the workforce

So 24% of them are under 19.
50% of them are under 24... If someone under 24 HAS To support a family of 4, they have already made more than one bad decisions in their life.

64% Aren't working 40hrs a week (either by their choice or the employers).

Interesting statistic, most of them appear to be white people living in the south.

So... what's the hit? 1.566MM workers going from 7.25/hr to 10/hr. Lets assume, since 36% are working 40hrs a week, and the other 54% are earning a range of 10-35 hrs a week.... I'll average that to about 26.55 hours per week per person...
Total annual gift from employers to the workers.... (drumroll please)..... $114,337,575
But don't forget, uncle sam wants his piece too... 16,630,920 in additional taxes gifted to uncle sam, just for the increase...

Two words Victor: Crap Ola.

Do you have anything showing it's crap? Or you just don't want to believe it because in your mind there's no way giving money to the poor could in any way be bad....

No - I just don't forgive you.

I have FEELINGS you know!

So you're still trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

The LME is a measurement of when $$$'s that would be spent outside the local economy is shifted away from some other economy to the local economy where the $$$'s originated.

What proof can you offer that will support you hypothesis that given a raise, those workers will spend those new found wages only at businesses that will in turn spend said $$$'s entirely in their economy?