Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

gofastbobby wrote: The trouble with our welfare system is it has turned in to a safety net for people who don't want to work.

Do you have any facts to back up this feeling you've stated? If so, please post a link so we can verify your data.

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: A poor person that is motivated will develop the skills and/or work ethic to get a better job. Any poor person can find a way to work for good money. Raising the minimum wage is not motivating them, they will not suddenly work harder. Most people are not putting in less effort because they make minimum wage, they make minimum wage because they put in less effort.

Okay. So what? If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure? Provide tax-funded subsidies (welfare) to keep them to provide basic quality of life? or pay them just enough to stay above the poverty line?

What would have happened to them 100 years ago?

They'd go to a church and ask for help? Get a job in a factory that hires every able body because they aren't incredibly picky about qualifications like every employer is today? Live in a homeless camp for a few years, ride the rails, maybe get runover by a train?

It aint like the old days man.

Honestly, I'd rather take my chances 100 years ago than today. You didn't need a piece of paper to show your intelligence, you didn't need a resume to show your dedication to the job, and you didn't need to prove you were starving to get a free meal.

100 years ago this was the land of the opportunity.

PHeller wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: What would have happened to them 100 years ago?

They'd go to a church and ask for help? Get a job in a factory that hires every able body because they aren't incredibly picky about qualifications like every employer is today? Live in a homeless camp for a few years, ride the rails, maybe get runover by a train? It aint like the old days man.

Yep. The economy was nowhere near as good at producing wealth. It took a lot more manpower to produce a lot less wealth for a much smaller population.

Also... our government started social systems that remain in place to this day because they decided public aid was beneficial to society as a whole.

Yes, Beer Baron just touched on this. Another thing that deserves mentioning is much higher productivity. Workers are producing much more money and goods per man hour but the workers are not seeing much or any benefit from the increased productivity.

PHeller wrote: How does a kid out of highschool, from a poor urban family that lives mostly on government assistance, make enough money to move out on his own when the nearest factory job is an hours subway or bus ride away and still only pays $10/hr? Hell, the nearest grocery is probably 25 minutes away. He's got no experience working in a factory, he's got little work experience, and he can't just up and move because he's got no money. Even if he's a good kid who's stayed out of trouble, do you really expect him to get the job over someone twice his age with prior experience and a car of their own?

I grew up with long periods of no running water or electricity.

When I was 18 (1998) I got a job paying $7 an hour. I got back and forth to work in a $400 Nissan 200SX that I bought with earning from my minimum wage job at a grocery store.

Using that $7/hr, I built a really cheap PC (I'd never owned one) to learn about computers. I also saved up $1300 over the course of about a year (I was still living at home)

That $1300 bought me a plan ticket to, some living money, and 1 months rent for a bedroom in an house in Austin, TX. I only have a GED, but I taught myself some IT and used that to get a job in IT after a couple of minimum wage jobs.

There isn't an excuse for anyone of at least average intelligence to have a minimum wage job as a career. It is all about work ethic and wanting to change one's situation.

How many jobs do you think the local pizza place provides?

How does he pay for the subway ticket before his first paycheck? How does he even get an interview at the factory?

Thats what I'm getting at. For even GOOD kids and GOOD adults, getting a foot in the door is becoming harder and harder.

The experience gained at a minimum wage job like Wal-Mart or McDonalds or the local Pizza Place does not translate to getting a job that pay even a little bit better at a factory. Nor does it begin to cover the costs of education along with an apartment.

PHeller wrote: How does a kid out of highschool, from a poor urban family that lives mostly on government assistance, make enough money to move out on his own when the nearest factory job is an hours subway or bus ride away and still only pays $10/hr? Hell, the nearest grocery is probably 25 minutes away. He's got no experience working in a factory, he's got little work experience, and he can't just up and move because he's got no money. Even if he's a good kid who's stayed out of trouble, do you really expect him to get the job over someone twice his age with prior experience and a car of their own?

He sacks up and gets his ass to work. Or he moves.

Manpants. Something that kids (i refuse to call them "people" or "adults") of my generation and younger lack completely.

This is a big, complex issue that is not going to have a 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I had a long rant, but not enough time to type it.

It comes down to personal responsibly and the lack there of. It can't be mandated. It can be taught, but most will refuse/resist.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/technology-and-wages-the-analytics-wonkish/

Technology and Wages, the Analytics (Wonkish) Obviously I’m getting a lot of reaction to my stuff on robots and all that. (My copy editor, last night: “Thank God, it’s not about the fiscal cliff!”) My sense is, however, that a lot of the reaction, both positive and negative, involves misunderstanding the economic logic, with some readers believing that technological progress can never hurt workers, others believing that rapid productivity growth always hurts workers; neither is true. So here’s an attempt to explain what’s going on in the theory; cognoscenti will recognize it as nothing more than an exposition of J.R, Hicks’s analysis of the whole thing in his 1932 Theory of Wages (pdf).

Start with the notion of an aggregate production function, which relates economy-wide output to economy-wide inputs of capital and labor. Yes, that sort of aggregation does violence to the complexity of reality. So?

Furthermore, for current purposes, hold the quantity of capital fixed and show how output varies with the quantity of labor. We expect the relationship to look like the lower curve in this figure (we’ll get to the upper curves in a minute):

Now, in a perfectly competitive economy (don’t worry, we’ll talk about what happens if not in a minute), we would expect the labor force to achieve full employment by accepting whatever real wage is consistent with said full employment. And what is that real wage? It’s the marginal product of labor at that point — which, graphically, is the slope of the aggregate production function where it crosses the vertical blue line.

Now suppose that we have technological progress. This manifests itself — indeed, in this context is basically defined as — an upward shift in the production function. I’ve shown two alternative curves, to make a point. Technology A and technology B are drawn so as to yield exactly the same level of output at full employment — which also says that both would lead to exactly the same rise in measured labor productivity. But they don’t have the same effect on real wages! Technology A is just a proportional upward shift in the original production function — which is “Hicks-neutral” technological change. As a result, the slope of the function where it crosses the blue line rises by that same proportion: real wages rise by the same amount as productivity.

But technology B is different — the gains are bigger at lower levels of employment, which is to say higher ratios of capital to labor (because the amount of capital is held fixed for this exercise). As a result, it is much flatter where it crosses the full employment line — which says that it would lead to much lower real wages than technology BA. In fact, as I’ve drawn it, it leads to lower real wages than under the original technology.

What we’ve just seen, then, is that the effect of technological progress on wages depends on the bias of the progress; if it’s capital-biased, workers won’t share fully in productivity gains, and if it’s strongly enough capital-biased, they can actually be made worse off.

So it’s wrong to assume, as many people on the right seem to, that gains from technology always trickle down to workers; not necessarily. It’s also wrong to assume, as some (but not all) on the left sometimes seem to — e.g., William Greider — that rapid productivity growth is necessarily jobs- or wage-destroying. It all depends.

What’s happening right now is that we are seeing a significant shift of income away from labor at the same time that we’re seeing new technologies that look, on a cursory overview, as if they’re capital-biased. So we could be looking at my technology B story above.

There are, however, other possibilities — including the possibility that the fact that we don’t actually have perfect competition is playing a big role here.

So that’s the story so far. And it’s important stuff.

.

I will check in and reply to comments later, but I need to get back to work now.

In reply to PHeller:

Very rarely are there cases like this, I will admit, I used to believe the same thing......there are almost always things if you keep searching. It took me nearly 9mo to find the industry I've grown to love.

FWIW, when I was initially hired, the listing claimed minimum wage, I actually recieved $3/hr better than it for 3 reasons, I showed up early, had good appearance, and I had done some homework on the industry. Oddly enough, I was never considered for a "union position" at the local GM plant for doing precisely the same things.....

Gearheadotaku wrote: This is a big, complex issue that is not going to have a 'one-size-fits-all' answer. I had a long rant, but not enough time to type it. It comes down to personal responsibly and the lack there of. It can't be mandated. It can be taught, but most will refuse/resist.

As you said this is a big, complex issue and it is not going to have 'one-size-fits-all" answer.

Personal responsibility may be part of the answer. Certianly doesn't come down to just that. Education is part of it, just one piece of the puzzle.

pres589 wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to fritzsch: Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

Eh; "The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. " That sounds like a living wage to me. source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

Regarding "living wage"...

Yes, your quote looks like a "living wage"- whatever THAT means.

But it was written in 2010. It's not an assessment of the original intent of Congress in 1938.

I'm not going to pretend to know the original intent. But here is a graph showing the nominal vs real minimum wages from 1938- today. Important note: the nominal numbers are inflation adjusted to 2012 values.

In 2012 dollars, the value of minimum wage in 1938 when Congress enacted it was about $4 per hour. It remained between $4 and $5 for over a decade.

That DOESN'T sound like a "living wage" to me.

A couple of other observations...

• It peaked briefly in 1968, at $10.51. It was VERY short-lived. I am thinking that was economically unsustainable (which would make $15 completely impossible).

• It has remained between $6 and $8 for nearly 4 decades. It was also there for 2 additional decades in the 40's and 50's.

• Each time it has been raised in the last 4 decades (to about $7), the buying power has fallen over the next few years back to about $6, due to inflation.

• The current bump up was the highest level in 4 decades, and has only existed for 4 years, which is much less time than previous. It was also the highest percentage increase since 1948.

Source:

Oregon State study

BTW- there are several other very good graphs on that link.

SVreX wrote:

pres589 wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to fritzsch: Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

Eh; "The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. " That sounds like a living wage to me. source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

Regarding "living wage"... Yes, your quote looks like a "living wage"- whatever THAT means. But it was written in 2010. It's not an assessment of the original intent of Congress in 1938. I'm not going to pretend to know the original intent. But here is a graph showing the nominal vs real minimum wages from 1938- today. Important note: the nominal numbers are inflation adjusted to 2012 values. In 2012 dollars, the value of minimum wage in 1938 when Congress enacted it was about $4 per hour. It remained between $4 and $5 for over a decade. That DOESN'T sound like a "living wage" to me. A couple of other observations... - It peaked briefly in 1968, at $10.51. It was VERY short-lived. I am thinking that was economically unsustainable (which would make $15 completely impossible). - It has remained between $6 and $8 for nearly 4 decades. It was also there for 2 additional decades in the 40's and 50's. - Each time it has been raised in the last 4 decades (to about $7), the buying power has fallen over the next few years back to about $6, due to inflation. - The current bump up was the highest level in 4 decades, and has only existed for 4 years, which is much less time than previous. It was also the highest percentage increase since 1948. Source: Oregon State study BTW- there are several other very good graphs on that link.

i posted that before, and I was told it was "unreadable" and that the numbers "didn't mean much". We'll see if that continues.

EDIT: Here it is. last post on page 2.

fritzsch wrote: Yes, the minimum wage has been decreasing for decades.

You sure you want to stick with that answer? That looks to me like the minimum wage has been INCREASING for decades.

In reply to fritzsch:

Education is part of the puzzle indeed......through high school we had it drilled into our heads that "YOU HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE TO BE SUCCESSFUL" I currently make more than several fellow classmates who have post-bachelors degrees in useless fields.....I don't even have $100k of debt hanging over my head. I attribute that as part of the problem.

In reply to Bobzilla:

I can read it.

Swank Force One wrote:

PHeller wrote: How does a kid out of highschool, from a poor urban family that lives mostly on government assistance, make enough money to move out on his own when the nearest factory job is an hours subway or bus ride away and still only pays $10/hr? Hell, the nearest grocery is probably 25 minutes away. He's got no experience working in a factory, he's got little work experience, and he can't just up and move because he's got no money. Even if he's a good kid who's stayed out of trouble, do you really expect him to get the job over someone twice his age with prior experience and a car of their own?

He sacks up and gets his ass to work. Or he moves. Manpants. Something that kids (i refuse to call them "people" or "adults") of my generation and younger lack completely.

I want to give you a hug right now.

Gearheadotaku wrote: It comes down to personal responsibly and the lack there of. It can't be mandated. It can be taught, but most will refuse/resist.

I disagree that it is just personal responsibility. That is a factor, but not the only one. Nor do I agree with the sentiment that personal responsibility is a binary thing that you either have or you don't. Everyone has some level of personal responsibility, some more than others. You may have more personal responsibility than me. That does not mean I do not have any. (I know you are not accusing me, personally, of lacking responsibility; just pointing out it is a spectrum.) The person who only has motivation to work a job within a 30 minute travel radius requiring only the current skill set they have still has some amount of motivation.

I feel that rather than shouting and frothing that some people have less personal responsibility and motivation than others, I will just accept that as fact. I agree that nothing I can do will change their level of personal responsibility.

So, what do we do about it? Rather than expecting people to have the motivation to do more than stock shelves at BoxMart before going home to smoke, drink, and screw... what do we do about it? What do we allow or expect to happen to them?

Swank, you assume that he could even get the higher paying job at the factory in today's "MUST HAVE EXPERIENCE" hiring climate.

I'm not saying we should give the kid a handout, but how can we expect everyone to get a good paying job in areas WE KNOW have a (Unskilled) labor surplus?

EDIT: Added the unskilled as there are more places in the US where we have unskilled labor surplus but skilled labor shortages.

Well, we could TEACH personal responsibility. Butthat is something that must come from the home. Maybe we could CONDEMN all the blaming that goes on (It's not my fault I'm fat, my daddy didn't love me, They made me eat those burgers). That might be a start.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: The risks you took..if they had turned out differently you would now be in the same predicament as the people you evidently aren't generous enough to assist.

I am not generous enough to assist? Really? How many jobs have you created? I have created a few hundred, well paying jobs.

You didn't create jobs. Those jobs are created by the market demand for your product. If the demand wasn't there, no company. No company = no jobs. You may have created the company but you didn't create the demand. Without your company and your precious trickle down jobs the demand would've been met by someone else.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: You were helped many times over in your life to get where you are whether admit it or not. I hope you repay the favor in the future and help others along the way.

I was helped, yes, by the guy that gave me a job. He gave me the ability to help myself by doing the best job I could in order to advance. I do help others along the way, most of the time without them knowing. I have helped people on this board, I just don't brag about it. If you want more than minimum wage, earn it, don't just demand it.

You were helped by more than the person who gave you a job.

~ Your parents created and raised you. A bit more important than the first job guy I'd argue. A thankless job, being a parent.

~ Your school educated you. If it was public, at taxpayer expense. If it was private that school still benefited from society in various ways that you can find yourself. You're welcome for the education as I have helped to pay for it.

~ You, and I'm assuming the company you own, benefit from infrastructure that was built and owned collectively. You're welcome for the roads, power lines, etc that I have helped pay for so that your company can conduct business here.

~ A public owned police force has protected you and your property from birth. Your company would have vastly larger costs if you had to protect it from say...other nations and other larger businesses. You're welcome that I assist you in paying to protect your assets.

..the list goes on. You have been given more help by this society than you evidently realize.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean the deserve your scorn or to be looked down upon.

You are way off base here. Where have I "looked down upon" someone who is poor? Can you earn your way to a better lifestyle? Yes. Can you demand someone else give you a better lifestyle? No.

Just lighten up Francis. No one is here to take your millions or thousands or whatever. We all help the less fortunate because it's the kind thing to do. Also, it benefits us in that they have other ways to feed themselves besides ganging together to pillage and loot your company. Plenty of people are in a bad way. Stop trying to blame them for it and make it out like they don't deserve help. We are a society. We help each other as a rising tide raises all boats.

PHeller wrote: Swank, you assume that he could even get the higher paying job at the factory in today's "MUST HAVE EXPERIENCE" hiring climate. I'm not saying we should give the kid a handout, but how can we expect everyone to get a good paying job in areas WE KNOW have a labor surplus?

If you KNOW there's a labor surplus, and your desire is to make money, you find a field that doesn't have a labor surplus. IF you don't want to do that, you make yourself more valuable in your current field by cross-training within your field.

There is always a way if you want it. It will just depend on how bad you want it. Making excuses for why these people shouldn't try is sickening. We're PROMOTING the lack of personal responisbility by doing it.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Dude... You realize that the guy you are telling to lighten up, is the same guy that offered extremely high paying jobs to a lot of people on this website recently, right?

I think he's doing a pretty darned good job of helping society., and he speaks from first hand experience.

PHeller wrote: Swank, you assume that he could even get the higher paying job at the factory in today's "MUST HAVE EXPERIENCE" hiring climate. I'm not saying we should give the kid a handout, but how can we expect everyone to get a good paying job in areas WE KNOW have a (Unskilled) labor surplus? EDIT: Added the unskilled as there are more places in the US where we have unskilled labor surplus but skilled labor shortages.

Well he won't know unless he tries, right?

$10/hr jobs are not hard to find depending on your location. If they're hard to find in your location, then move.