I am not sure how your rant against a communist strawman correspondswith my post...

I never said anything about communism. I'm just trying to be fair.

Doctor Fate wrote:I never said anything about communism. I'm just trying to be fair.

No, you are not being fair. You are just being silly. Freeman isn't talking about equal wages, just a higher minimum wage. You know full well that what you said was (an ill informed) caricature of communism.

All I can guess is that you don't have a response to what freeman is actually saying.

freeman2 wrote:Rj, I looked at the charts and i guess from a scan of the charts (it's tedious to try and assimilate all of the data) that are you are trying to show a correlation between higher minimum wage laws and higher unemployment...but isnt it also true that we could say that higher minimum wage laws correlate with a higher standard of living (given that higher minimum wage laws appear to be concentrated in states with higher levels of income)? Correlation is one thing, causation is another

Indeed. And a snapshot of unemployment at a time when the economy is just recovering isn't going to tell a lot either, because different regions and states will recover at different times and rates for various reasons.

However, if living costs are different across the states to such a degree, you would likely be looking at a variety of minimum wage rates.

So, each state is different. I agree, Danivon.

Even a state as diverse as Illinois is different in varying locales. Should a worker in Galesburg bagging groceries make the same as someone in Chicago? The cost of living in each area is certainly not comparable. So having the minimum wage set forth at the Federal level is silly, and the state level controls are silly as well.

Should a worker in Chicago make the same as a worker in Galesburg?
Should an employer in Galesburg have to pay the same wage as an employer in Chicago?

We can even look in a metropolitan region.
Are East Flatbush and Manhattan comparable concerning business profit making potential? Certainly not. So a Manhattan deli needs to pay it's workers more than a deli in East Flatbush.

If an employer makes more money in a locale because of cost of living, then he/she can pay more for employees. If the employer does not pay a high enough wage, then the employer will not get employees. If the state mandates too high of minimum wage, then the employer cannot keep in business without raising prices.

If Chicago sets rates too high for Galesburg, the store will go out of business, but the store in Chicago will flourish, and the employee there will suffer, as the wage might be higher comparatively than Galesburg, but lower comparatively to the standard of living in that region.

This shows the problem with government intrusion (IMHO). They are picking winners and losers...

So, Brad, you are not willing to put any limits with regard to how little an employee makes? Even after workers have been getting a declining share of wages relative to their productivity, indicating that workers are losing bargaining power with regard to negotiating wages with employers? You would never interfere if the trend towards employers having greater bargaining
power kept getting worse (and the employer kept getting a higher and higher percentage of the wealth created by the employee)?

I do not have any problem with an employee having no low limit any more than I have a problem with no high limit. If an employee can make his/her worth higher, than so be it.

Let me know what you think of the my situation above between Chicago and Galesburg regarding standard of living in different areas of a single state.

Thing is, despite our small size, the UK has different costs of living, yet we get by with a national set of rates (it is lower for under21s). What we have in London is the unofficial 'living wage'.

So while I can see there being variation across the US, and there already are some cities (like SF and Alberquerque) which have a higher rate, micro-rates could also be problematic (not to mention difficult for large employers with a wide geographical base to handle).

While you may have no problem with having no minimum wage, do you have a proble with taxes being used to make up the gap between wages and a living income for a family? I Do.

Let's imagine that your typical low skilled worker has a fair-market value based on his/her ability to generate wealth for an employer. Let's say if you took the pool of unskilled workers and were able to calculate their median productivity (how much wealth they create). If the ratio of wealth created median unskilled worker/proposed minimum wage is substantially higher than that ratio has typically been then I have little
concern about different standards of living within a typical state because the employer would be making so much money off of the employee they could easily absorb any modest increase in labor costs (and if they couldn't someone else would swipe up such a valuable employee)
If we got to a point where the minimum wage approached that ratio of wealth created/wage that held when unions were strong and could negotiate a fair rate of return then I might be concerned about different costs of living. But given that unskilled, non-skilled labor has the least amount of bargaining power I believe without government protection their compensation will be well below their objective fair market value. That is why you need a minimum wage

Ricky:

Europe's a big place.

So is the U.S. -- practically as large. That's my point.

Ricky:

By the way, I don't get your reference to Canada. Is it to point out that Saskatchewan

No, it's to point out that Alberta has a lower minimum wage than some U.S. jurisdictions on a purchasing power basis.

Ricky:

If its to point out regional disparities are acceptable. I already granted that, if there exist rationale for differing cost of living that they might make sense.

But Freeman made the proposal, and he hasn't. He's from CA so my assumption is that he is looking to raise the minimum wage of Mississippi by a substantial amount.

Freeman:

Correlation is one thing, causation is another

Please keep that in mind. It seems that one of the biggest arguments you are making is that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages are more prosperous. I think you have the causation reversed.

Does anyone else think it is time for Obama to bail out the twinkie industry, protect the union and hose the bond holders? Twinkies are big in Florida, so it may be a winner for the Democrats for at least a decade. (just joking by channeling my inner Romney).

ray

No, it's to point out that Alberta has a lower minimum wage than some U.S. jurisdictions on a purchasing power basis

There's nothing in there about Alberta... Where, by the way there's a dearth of employees in the oil sands region. And to compensate Tim Hortons (fast food & coffee) pays employees a $10,000 retention bonus if they stay a year.

The disparity in cost of living, is not so much state to state as urban to suburban to rural...
There is a stronger case for differing minimum wages between those geographies than between states.
If one considers a minimum wage a blunt instrument, and it is, trying to fine tune it to meet the vagaries of interstate, let alone inter federal jurisdiction becomes ridiculous. You can't fine tune an economy like that.
The big picture is this
ray

Please keep that in mind. It seems that one of the biggest arguments you are making is that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages are more prosperous. I think you have the causation reversed.

The actual relationship that is constant, is that the more prosperous countries, and states tend to have lower classes and poor that have a slightly better standard of living. And better access to the things that allow the children of these poor to work their way out of their economic status. Education and health care. Education in order to acquire the knowledge and skills and health care in order to ensure that health issues don't derail their quest. (Either physically or financially)

Minimum wages are a small part of the problem. Another, larger issue, is that employers exploit their work force by keeping them permanent part time to avoid health insurance costs....and other benefits.
The original mistake in the US was making private employers responsible for providing health insurance. It not only saddled employers with an honerous expense that is not their expertise, but it often limits employee mobility. And mobility is the only weapon a low paid employee has...... If they can't afford to leave a low paying job for a slightly better paying job due to insurance issues, you've eliminated their only leverage in what is generally an uneven bargaining position

The fundamental is that some employers will always try to skimp on employee pay and benefits. Can we agree on that reality.?
In order to avoid govenrment mandates like minimum wage increases they will make any number of arguements about the dire consequences of such a move. Three months after the increase they'll have accomodated the changes without much fuss. Maybe by raising the cost of an extra large sausage by 11 cents...
Nothing is going to be fundamnetally changed if the minimum wage in the US is increased. The working poor will just have a little more money. Some might even notice, and it will actually help the economy more than the rich keeeping that small slice ...

So Ray, if you co,mpare the 12 nations around the world that are considered to be more properous than the US, you will fnd that they all have a "minimum wage" higher than the US.
And those other important elements ; universal health care and inexpensive secondary education.
They remain prosperous, despite offering those elements to a working class .
So the question remains, why does the US have an employer class, who's very survival (if you believe the hyperbole from some of them) as businesses seems to be based upon access to a working class to whom they cannot afford to pay a living wage ?
The answer ...is not just the mandate of a minimum wage ....but its a small step in the right direction

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I never said anything about communism. I'm just trying to be fair.

No, you are not being fair. You are just being silly. Freeman isn't talking about equal wages, just a higher minimum wage. You know full well that what you said was (an ill informed) caricature of communism.

All I can guess is that you don't have a response to what freeman is actually saying.

I said nothing of communism, period. What I did "caricature" is the idea that the raising of the minimum wage is a bit of a panacea. It is nothing of the sort.

If you artificially inflate wages or artificially impose some new "entitlement" (Obamacare), it will have ramifications. Businesses will react to increased costs.

Liberals are more than happy to impose those increased costs on businesses AND consumers. What they fail to understand is that there will be a cycle: government imposition of higher wages means (initially) fewer people will be hired; cost to produce will go up; increased production costs means increased cost of consumer goods; increased costs of consumer goods lessens the impact of higher wages, so minimum wage is no longer high "enough" and must be raised again. Rinse. Repeat.

rickyp wrote:Minimum wages are a small part of the problem. Another, larger issue, is that employers exploit their work force by keeping them permanent part time to avoid health insurance costs....and other benefits.

This is a fine summation of economic liberalism: employers are the problem. Their responses to government mandates are the problem. Their use of cheap energy is the problem. Their desire to make profit is the problem.

Government is the answer.

The next four years will continue to demonstrate the wisdom of "Government is the answer."

Do employees need to stay at a job? Do they have a right to leave? Of course they do.

Employer hires employee to make widgets and worker makes $5/hr. and can make 10 widgets/hour. Each produced widget costs 50 cents. As employee increases skill and knowledge, he/she makes 20 widgets/hour. The cost goes to 25 cents for that employee. If employee asks for a wage increase to make the cost commensurate with the production rate, that would be fine. I think the employer should increase wage in that case. That is a no brainer.

Employer hires employee to make widgets and worker makes $5/hr. and can make 10 widgets/hour. Each produced widget costs 50 cents. Employee starts drinking and loses productivity. Should his/her wage be decreased commensurate with productivity. Again, a no brainer.

If minimum wage controls are put into place, the situation 2 worker cannot have the wage reduced. Seems like the employee has all the power to go where they want and screw off and get the minimum wage. Some states don't allow a worker to be fired. Some unions don't allow that either.