This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

How Special-Interest Groups Benefit From Minimum Wage Laws

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Gary Gelles via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Those campaigning for a substantial jump in the minimum wage all assert that the purpose is to help working families. Unfortunately, careful students of the evidence come to a different conclusion. As Mark Wilson summarized it, “evidence from a large number of academic studies suggests that minimum wage increases don’t reduce poverty levels.”

Some workers lose jobs (high minimum-wage states have among the highest unemployment rates); others have hours cut. The least-skilled get competed out of the jobs that remain (e.g., the minimum wage hits teenage employment hardest). It crowds out on-the-job training, impeding workers’ ability to learn their way out of poverty. And those effects are worse in a recession. It also raises costs and prices that workers pay as consumers.

How can we explain support for a policy that harms many of those supporters say they wish to help? We explain it by focusing not on low-income workers, but their substitutes.

Consider an analogy. If the price of ice cream was pushed up, earnings of ice cream producers might go up or down, depending on how much less was bought as a result. But producers of frozen yogurt, a substitute for ice cream, will definitely benefit, because a higher price of ice cream will increase demand for frozen yogurt, clearly benefiting its producers.

Similarly, increasing the minimum wage will raise the cost of hiring low-wage workers. And while it might actually hurt low-wage workers, it will help each substitute for low-wage labor by increasing its demand. Thus, the narrow self-interest of those offering substitutes for low-skill labor, rather than compassion for the working poor, may best explain support for higher minimum wages.

Unions top that list. A higher minimum wage increases the demand for union workers by reducing competition from lower-skilled workers. For instance, if the minimum wage was $8 and the union wage was $40, employers give up 5 hours of low-skilled work for every union worker-hour utilized. But increasing the minimum to $10 means employers give up 4 hours of low-skilled work for every union worker hour.

Union employers benefit as well, because the higher costs imposed on non-union competitors raise the prices they must charge, increasing demand for union employers’ output.

This can also explain why other “altruists” support higher minimum wages.

Non-union workers and employers in high cost of living areas, where virtually everyone earns above the federal minimum wage, benefit, by raising the cost of production imposed on rivals where wages are lower (Which is why many in high-wage areas favor higher federal minimum wages, while those in low-wage states — the alleged beneficiaries — often oppose them). Workers and producers where state minimum wages exceed the federal minimum also gain because it raises the cost of production where the federal minimum is binding, relative to where they are located.

Because all these substitutes for minimum-wage workers will see increased incomes, businesses and politicians in those locations will also benefit, and so join the bandwagon pushing for “doing good” in a way that directly benefits them.

Even Wal-Mart benefits from this effect. Because Wal-Mart already pays more than the federal minimum, in low-wage areas a federal minimum-wage increase raises competitors’ costs, but not theirs. In high-wage areas, supporting a higher federal minimum wage is a costless way for Wal-Mart to demonstrate compassion for workers.

Virtually everyone who supports higher minimum wages asserts their intent to help working families. But it may frequently be a false compassion whose common denominator is advancing one’s own self-interest while harming working families. That would also explain why so many are unwilling to seriously consider whether such compassion actually works, rather than just sounding good.

The same mechanism is at work in the depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, which is still in force. It required the payment of “prevailing wages” on any project that received federal money. But its genesis was the explicitly racist intent to exclude lower-cost southern firms employing black workers from underbidding local white workers for construction projects, by forcing them to pay their workers more.

A similar illustration came from South Africa, under apartheid. White labor unions backed “equal pay” laws for blacks and whites in the guise of helping black workers. But what it really did was raise the price of hiring blacks, who had less education and fewer skills on average, as well as being discriminated against, relative to the price of hiring whites. Whites gained, but black unemployment jumped as a result of that “compassion” on their behalf.

Another illustration from outside the labor market is the support of corn farmers, corn syrup processors, and those in their communities for restrictions on sugar imports from other countries. By substantially raising the price of sugar in the U.S., the policy has driven many candy makers and the jobs they create outside the U.S., harming those workers and their communities. But it has raised the price of a substitute for corn syrup, increasing demand for corn syrup and the inputs that go into making it, benefiting those in corn-producing states.

Most people don’t seem to recognize this clearly self-interested mechanism behind support for supposedly compassionate or altruistic policies to benefit others, which is why it typically stays under the political radar. But once a person thinks through it, the connection becomes obvious. Further, it suggests the appropriate test that should be applied in such cases: Whenever someone claims an altruistic reason to support a policy, but it clearly advances their narrow self-interest, the latter effect can explain such support regardless of whether it actually helps the supposed beneficiaries. Therefore, a great deal of cynicism is justified. And when their “story” for how supposed beneficiaries are helped cannot stand the slightest real scrutiny, as with the current minimum-wage campaign, there can be no doubt that such cynicism is justified.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:38 | 4442717 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

"How can we explain support for a policy that harms many of those supporters say they wish to help? We explain it by focusing not on low-income workers, but their substitutes."

We ARE helping them.  We are helping them make the right choice.  The choice to go on Welfare, Food Stamps and to fake Disability claims.  

Come to the light.  All are welcome in the light.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:49 | 4442750 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

Gary put more effort into this post than the last one but still fails to cite a single actual study and instead comes up with 'analogies.'

Consider an analogy. If the price of ice cream was pushed up, earnings of ice cream producers might go up or down, depending on how much less was bought as a result. But producers of frozen yogurt, a substitute for ice cream, will definitely benefit, because a higher price of ice cream will increase demand for frozen yogurt, clearly benefiting its producers.

First, what the fuck kind of analogy is that? Seriously. And second why would frozen yogurt producers ‘definitely’ benefit? A ten cent increase in my ice cream cone is going to send me running to frozen yogurt? You can prove this?

And then how much do you estimate the price would go up depending on what increase in the minimum wage? 

If my labour costs go up let’s say 2% will this mean I’ll sell 2% less ice cream? If minimum wage was dropped 2% would that mean I’d sell 2% more ice cream? Because interestingly… labour costs have been going down, corporate profits have been going up.. and consumers? They’ve been buying less shit!

When you actually look at it in non-abstract terms it ain’t as simple as A B C

Come up with an actual real case study on minimum wage specifically and add some facts and then write a post...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:01 | 4442782 myne
myne's picture

Consumers are producers?

How can that be?

That doesn't fit the narrative!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:51 | 4442905 rehypothecator
rehypothecator's picture

By some incredible coincidence, Archer Daniels Midland (1) lobbies for the continuation of sugar price supports and (2) produces high fructose corn syrup.  Simply amazing, isn't it? 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:59 | 4442928 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

By some incredible coincidence, Archer Daniels Midland (1) lobbies for the continuation of sugar price supports and (2) produces high fructose corn syrup.  Simply amazing, isn't it? 

The other thing Gary leaves out is who actually works in the fields and what their wages are, particularly considering how protected the industry is.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:05 | 4442955 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

Hey Jim, this is how sugar cane is harvested.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sugar+cane+harvester&qpvt=sugar+cane+harvester&FORM=IGRE

The combine driver makes a good living setting in his air conditioned cab, don'tcha know.

DaddyO

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:45 | 4443065 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

Here in Florida it is mostly mechanized, the migrants are used mostly in the row crop production of produce for human consumption.

And see if you can get more recent date on wage rates, 1998 is so 20th century...

Look there is no way around the fact that farm workers no matter what stripe don't make high wages. But when you use executive order to hike wages it triggers all kinds of other wage hikes.

Most if not all union contracts have wage push clauses for minimum wage hikes.

So union workers no matter what their wage get the same hike.

This in turn triggers Davis-Bacon Act hikes for most .gov contract workers. So the Lockheed Martin Tech making 55k + bennies gets the same hike the union workers get.

So a $3 per hour hike in the minimum wage which for the part time worker equates to about 3000K/yr gives the full time union worker 6 laning I-95 about $6000 to $8000/yr hike depending on overtime.

The Lockheed Martim worker who gets about 2500hrs per year just saw a raise of $7500

DaddyO

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:25 | 4443193 AmCockerSpaniel
AmCockerSpaniel's picture

Does the amount of your pay effect your level of living? Does the level of your income effect

your spending? Do you want to fund foreign workers, and pay out of work American works? If

they can force workers to work for just food, and no more, can it not be done to you and yours?                                                                             

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:56 | 4443201 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

And see if you can get more recent date on wage rates, 1998 is so 20th century...

Are you suggesting wages have gone up? 

Most if not all union contracts have wage push clauses for minimum wage hikes.

12% of the workforce, mostly .gov.

The Lockheed Martim worker who gets about 2500hrs per year just saw a raise of $7500

 

Totally irrelevant. Defence contracts exist in world of completely made up economics. 

 

 

The thing about arguments around minimum wage is they often spin off into anecdotes such as yours. How about approaching the issue head on? If a minimum wage hike is a negative for the economy, what about it's corollary - getting rid of the minimum wage / lowering it? Or another argument - where should the minimum wage be set?

Those arguments are no good because they require critical thinking. The best you get from the MSM is higher labour price = higher product costs = lower sales = lower employment. Or on the other side higher wages = more disposal income = bottom up consumerism = more demand. And then the predictable binary back and forth.

And on zh you have the braindead libertarians going on about how .gov shouldn't be allowed to set any prices, totally ignoring that the entire US economy is built on price controls. 

No one wants to fucking think. 

 

And then the propagandists.. they're clever because they always dance around the complex issues and are smart enough to know that most people will a) do nothing rather than risk a negative impact b) generally choose no change over any change which is great for maintaining the status quo. 

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/corporate-pro...

Oh, but imagine how much worse it will be with a minimum wage hike! Scary!!

From the same people who sold you on exporting the American manufacturing base in order to secure long lasting American prosperity.. Part 2: how raising the minimum wage will destroy America!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 23:31 | 4443993 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 And on zh you have the braindead libertarians going on about how .gov shouldn't be allowed to set any prices, totally ignoring that the entire US economy is built on price controls.

So 'brain-dead' libertarians - who are the ones decrying central banks' setting of interest rates, minimum wage laws, regulations, subsidies.. are somehow 'ignoring' that the 'entire' US economy is buit on price controls?

Even if we ignore the obvious fallacy in your assertion that the 'entire' US economy is somehow 'built on' price controls, you're talking gibberish.

James_Cole strikes (out) again.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 03:22 | 4444358 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

So 'brain-dead' libertarians - who are the ones decrying central banks' setting of interest rates, minimum wage laws, regulations, subsidies.. are somehow 'ignoring' that the 'entire' US economy is buit on price controls?

The ones arguing out of one side of their face that a minimum wage hike would be a huge detriment to the economy while out the other side acknowledging that most aspects of the economy are centrally controlled. 

The way I see it, up until the 2008 crash I heard a lot "efficient market hypothesis blah blah blah market forces blah blah blah" then mysteriously at the time of the crash I heard "OMG! We need 1 trillion dollars no questions asked right now or there will be tanks in the streets!!" And now I'm hearing more "efficient market hypothesis blah blah blah market forces blah blah blah."

And on the TV, Libor? QE? Ah, who gives a fuck. Minimum wage? Millions of 'debates.' 

Libertarians are the useful idiots who show up to complain about unions and workers rights - something they and the business community have common ground on & have coincidentally had a lot of success crushing, while the shit libertarians talk against which actually benefits the elite banking interests, somehow that just keeps humming along perfectly. 

Oh yea, end the fed, sure. We all got the bumper sticker. No more free money to banks, yep. Been saying that since 88! Really goin' strong!

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 15:00 | 4445309 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 The way I see it, up until the 2008 crash I heard a lot "efficient market hypothesis blah blah blah market forces blah blah blah" then mysteriously at the time of the crash I heard "OMG! We need 1 trillion dollars no questions asked right now or there will be tanks in the streets!!" And now I'm hearing more "efficient market hypothesis blah blah blah market forces blah blah blah."

As usual, your post is a logic salad of conflations, errors and calumnies. You clearly don't know what the 'efficient markets hypothesis' is, not that it's at all relevant to your post decrying libertarians; as it wasn't libertarians saying we need "1 trillion dollars no questions asked right now or there will be tanks in the streets!!"

Libertarians denounce government intervention in all aspects of the market, dolt; and government intervention in setting minimum wages does increase unemployment, even if you're too simple to understand why. Try rereading the article until you understand it and then your comments might begin to make sense.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 15:56 | 4445449 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

You clearly don't know what the 'efficient markets hypothesis' is

My point is people talk a lot of shit when it's convenient but tend to throw it all away when expedient. As in the case of the 2008 crash when you had all these Milton Friedman / efficient market disciples suddenly insisting on no-strings-attached bailouts from taxpayers. 

Or another example is 'staunch libertarian' and anti-UN guy Ron Paul running to the UN to try and steal his website back from his own supporters who wanted to sell it to him. In an instant he tossed in the trash everything he ever claimed about libertarianism & the UN in order to look after his own particular self interests. As people always do.  

Libertarians denounce government intervention in all aspects of the market, dolt; 

Which is a completely dishonest intellectual position. Do you use the internet? Are you on the internet right now? lol 

and government intervention in setting minimum wages does increase unemployment, even if you're too simple to understand why. 

Already argued this many times, above and below on this thread. You're for no minimum wage, got it. 
Mon, 02/17/2014 - 02:10 | 4444290 Canoe Driver
Canoe Driver's picture

All wage increases are, almost immediately, counteracted by corresponding inflation, because the wage increase itself, by its very nature, is inflationary. Therefore no wage increase can provide other than a transient improvement in purchasing power. All wage increases are thus nominal and are made essentially for reasons of morale improvement and employee motivation. Real improvments in purchasing power can only be had through productivity increases and/or through owning, controlling and manipulating the means of production, i.e., capital stock. 

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 03:10 | 4444349 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Therefore no wage increase can provide other than a transient improvement in purchasing power.

Except... that's not true. Purchasing power in a number of countries is greater than the US consistently at the minimum wage level. 

Real improvments in purchasing power can only be had through productivity increases 

So, if there are major productivity increases yet stagnant wages...?

http://cnnmoneytalkback.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/chart-minimum-wage-e...

and/or through owning, controlling and manipulating the means of production, i.e., capital stock. 

You advocate socialism then?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:58 | 4443289 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

of course, he has to be skilled enough to set the right GPS coordinates so the combine doesn't harvest the neighbor's field ;~)

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:32 | 4443029 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

No, if labor costs go up you don't sell less ice cream, you make LESS money.  As a business owner, that's not the friggin' idea.  Plus it doesn't increase costs 2%, but enough that the owner must reduce employees or risk destroying what profit margin he/she has.  What do you think the profit margin is for most businesses? 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:31 | 4443206 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Reading comprehension skills, work on them.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 08:13 | 4444568 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Bow down and give thanks to yhe would be king arrogant narcissistic lying illegal alien kenyan muslim sociopath so it and its wookie can keep living yheir grand imperial lifestyle whole yhe tax paying serfs and peasants eat cake. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:39 | 4442718 4 Freedoms
4 Freedoms's picture

Yes!  By all means, lets bring back slavery.....wait.....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:40 | 4442722 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what percentage of all workers are actually in a union?  None of my employees are.  I doubt that this number is more than 7%.  Seems to me that the average wage has been steadily declining, doubly so when one considers the purchasing power of those wages.  Pretty clear that all of this is pretty much irrelevant if you are not using sound money or maintaining some rule of law and prosecuting the fucking fraud.


Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:44 | 4442738 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

You talking private or public sector workers?  Two very different animals.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:48 | 4442746 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So, you still believe that private military contractor is really working in the "private" sector and could stay in business without the government (public)?

What part of ALL don't you understand?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:52 | 4442765 maskone909
maskone909's picture

Private defense industry would simply contract with outside govs so yeah they would stay in business.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:00 | 4442780 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So they would find another public to steal from.  Sounds fucking great to me. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:32 | 4442851 maskone909
maskone909's picture

Lmfao i know what u mean. If i had the money and could legally purchase some of that shit i would buy it. I could always use an apache with anti tank missiles

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:09 | 4443146 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

for the morning commute i would assume>.....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 21:11 | 4443491 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

I *need* a car that goes 180 miles per hour to get to work in the morning. And one that has a .30 cal belt feed weapon roof mounted, so, yeah. There's hope.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 08:18 | 4444573 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Sign me up. Will yhey take BTC as a deposit?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:34 | 4443212 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

No, I'm commenting on the percentage of union employees in the private sector vs. the public sector.  Which was, I believe, your original question.  How we got on the issue of a private company whose only major client is government, I have no idea.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:21 | 4443174 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

The way I like to frame it is that it's our money we need to fix. When the minimum wage was 1.25, that was 5 quarters that were 90% silver. Those 5 quarters are worth nearly 20 Bennie bux today. Employers aren't able to increase wages at the rate the fed/govt are debasing the currency and remain profitable. The solution is to stop allowing a private banking cartel to debase the dollar for their benefit, not force employers to pay more money. So, like pretty much all of our economic problems, the solution is to end the fed.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 21:58 | 4443654 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Whether or not the currency is debased, American jobs will flow to China, the profits will flow to the billionaires who shipped the jobs overseas, and these billionaires won't pay a fucking cent in taxes, so working people will have to take up the slack. Please explain how changing the currency fixes these problems.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 23:46 | 4444051 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Why did the jobs get shipped to China? Because the overall costs of US workers rose to the point that Chinese workers produced goods more cheaply... despite the US' superior infrastructure, more highly educated workers, and productivity/hour of the workforce.

Why is this? For a bunch of reasons... minimum wage laws, more onerous regulation, higher taxes... and when you have property bubbles caused by artificially low interest rates, their higher prices are reflected in higher rents/mortgages for businesses.

But the biggest problem for US workers is that, for the US to have the world's reserve currency, the US must, by definition, export ownership of USD... ie, run a constant and expanding trade deficit (see Triffin's dillemma)

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 03:35 | 4444379 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Nope. American jobs went to China when our government lowered tariffs and allowed U.S. Corporations deduct the cost of moving production overseas from their US taxes. Then the government didn't tax overseas earnings until that money entered the US.

The price of third-world peasant labor has always been lower than US labor.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 03:35 | 4444380 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Nope. American jobs went to China when our government lowered tariffs and allowed U.S. Corporations deduct the cost of moving production overseas from their US taxes. Then the government didn't tax overseas earnings until that money entered the US.

The price of third-world peasant labor has always been lower than US labor.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:58 | 4443888 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Thank you for not falling for the Magician's Trick of TPTB:  Distraction & Action.

Wish more people (here and elsewhere) would have that clarity of thought.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:42 | 4442730 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Well, o.k., so let us start by ending "minimum wage" for insurers, corporations, and other societal parasites.

No subsidies to Big Ag., Big Pharma (Obamacare), Banks (QE), Corporations (tax breaks), etc.

It's all a big Ponzi, you may as well cut the little guy in on it, or cut the bullshit.

One or the other.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:26 | 4443195 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Cutting the little guy in on it would unleash the hidden inflation in a big way. The status quo is able to muddle along precisely because the money goes to all those at the top and largely stays there. All that QE mostly remains as reserves with the TBTF banks. If QE money was actually given to the little guy, as in the 'helicopter drops' inflation would sky rocket. And since these big firms aren't even able to turn a profit without them, noting will change until it is forced on them. I'm not defending this practice in any way, just saying why that will never happen

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:44 | 4442736 maskone909
maskone909's picture

Would abolishing the minimum wage destroy the fastfood industry? Would it cause deflation? I cant fathom the implication but my gut feeling tells me it would be a good thing.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:48 | 4442748 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

We need to raise the minimum wage to $5,000 per hour.  We end poverty and spur consusmer spending.  Or just have the fed send every family a cool million.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:50 | 4442758 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"Or just have the fed send every family a cool million." - if it was really sent to every family, this would have been more equitable then giving tens of trillions to a few fucking bankers and financial fucks. - just saying.  Moral hazard can be a bitch once people start sharpening their blades...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:55 | 4442770 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Publisher's Clearing House could be used to distribute checks at $1M each to 85,000 lucky winners every month. The Fed could then take a rest.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:28 | 4443021 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Yes, definitely, I want an "equitable" collapse.  Sheesh.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 23:07 | 4443908 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Hear, hear.  Philosophical perspectives aside, IMHO, giving every family $1M would do EXACTLY what the Fed "claims" to want to achieve:  VELOCITY OF MONEY (VOM).

Alas, if we were to call them out on this, we'd find out that VOM is not the REAL agenda, as they'd come up with a host of excuses which the MSM talking heads would back.  Let's not confuse Pretext with Motive.  In simple terms... Their Pretext is the "good of the Nation".  Their Motive is the "good of Fed's true owners", the 0.01%.

ZHers, keep the Clarity, Focus and the Faith.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:04 | 4442950 Shad_ow
Shad_ow's picture

Yeah!  That magic pen is discrimating against the little people.  Obama needs to get with it and "fix" everything with the stroke of his genius.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 08:24 | 4444581 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Too late. The narcissist sociopathic liar is out living its grand imperial golf lifestyle while its ho lookin wookie is parading around. In a 17 grand smock.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 08:24 | 4444582 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Too late. The narcissist sociopathic liar is out living its grand imperial golf lifestyle while its ho lookin wookie is parading around. In a 17 grand smock.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:48 | 4442749 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Weekend Tyler strikes again! Higher wages for crooks, assholes and societal leeches=good for economy. Higher wages for hard working low wage earners=economy killer. Who the fuck are you, Frank Luntz?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:50 | 4442757 maskone909
maskone909's picture

Please note this was not authored by ZH.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:19 | 4442792 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"Higher wages for crooks, assholes and societal leeches=good for economy. Higher wages for hard working low wage earners=economy killer."

You wanna pay more for services?  -Then just fucking tip people!  No One is going to try and stop you.

See how easy that is?   You can do this all day every day; VOLUNTARILY.

I'm betting that You DO NOT tip people at every cash register you step up to.

YOU don't want to pay more for goods and services yourself.  

You want to FORCE other people to pay more for goods and services.

YOU want to FORCE other people to pay more to fund the .GOV bureaucrats to use the FORCE of Governemnt to FORCE other people to pay more for goods and services just because you like the idea even though YOU will not and do not voluntarily do it yourself !

Now REFUT what I have just asserted -or just stfu roll up those sleeves and step forward.

This is Fight Club.  We're here to knock some sense into each other and/or ourselves.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:47 | 4442893 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Stop yelling, I'm right here. There has been a steady suppression of wages in the this country for 40 years. Yet the wages of the true government leeches continue to rise at alarming rates. I am for living wages paid for hard work. It worked in this country for 60 yesrs and then it began to change. The standard of living for the bottom 80% is declining and without funny money credit it would be worse. Sorry you may to pay 25 cents more for a chemical laden fast food sandwich. And yes, I would gladly pay more for real food, shoes, clothes and my car if it meant a living wage for an American. I guess I just refuse to be a self-centered selfish asshole.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:26 | 4443012 chunkylover42
chunkylover42's picture

"There has been a steady suppression of wages in the this country for 40 years."

This is absolutely true.  However, take a look at total compensation which includes benefiits like health care costs that a majority of workers get through their employer.  The yearly change in total comp tracks very closely to CPI, in fact running just a bit above except for during recessions.  In other words, rising health care costs are a major reason why wages have stagnated.  Compaines big and small have had to pay increasingly more to offer health insurance for their employees every year, and that difference has come out of wages.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:02 | 4443669 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Most Americans don't get employer provided healthcare. This is especially true of the people who work full time for poverty wages. So what you write is nonsense.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 23:20 | 4443926 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"Stop yelling, I'm right here.

And yes, I would gladly pay more for real food, shoes, clothes and my car if it meant a living wage for an American. I guess I just refuse to be a self-centered selfish asshole."

BULLSHIT.  You wouldn't gladly do anything VOLUNTARILY yourself.  You have NO Excuse.

YOU are a self-centered selfish asshole.  -You just admitted that YOU don't do what You are demanding of Other People!

1. STOP acting like your deaf.

2. STOP lying about your motives and intentions.

3. STOP demanding that Other People be forced to do that which YOU yourself refuse to do VOLUNTARILY.

IF YOU 100% truely believe in paying people more to do what they are doing YOU can sinply pay more for the services and goods YOU pay for.  

YOU DON'T.  

I don't have to respect You & I don't respect You because You are a damnable hypocrite and fraud.

You DO NOT DO what You demand of Other People.

It really is THAT fucking simple.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 02:09 | 4444288 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

@B7GR:

this is total crap what you wrote:

" I am for living wages paid for hard work."

doesn't matter what you are "for" - it's not your damn money!

you have no right to decide what constitutes "a living wage" (some arbitrary, made-up number), and force other people to buy labor at that rate, it is not your right to decide that for others.

in a free society, commercial exchange is 100% voluntary, no one forces anyone else to take any deal.

if you are in favor of centrally planned economy, go live in venezuela or argentina for a while, let me know how you like economic life there, because that's what you're advocating.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:51 | 4442903 PhilofOz
PhilofOz's picture

In Australia there is no tipping culture at all. It's a shock to Aussies that go to some countries and see how this works. We pay the best minimum wage rates in the world and no one is going to tell us that our society in this day and age is worse than anywhere else. Having travelled the world, inc much of the USA in the last 15 years I see well what works best for society in general. With a true minimum wage of almost $22 an hour.( $16 + 20% casual rate + 9% employer superannuation added) it's called a "fair go to all" and it gives everyone a decent living wage. I know where I'd rather be when the shit hits the fan and it's not in a place where already near half the population is living week to week desperately waiting for the next paycheck.  

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:00 | 4442935 PhilofOz
PhilofOz's picture

I'll just add that there are still no Wal-Marts in Australia even though they were considering expanding here 10 years ago. I'm in no doubt it is because of our high minimum wages that they refuse to accept. Tough! Keeps the little guys going a bit longer.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:21 | 4442995 Seeking Aphids
Seeking Aphids's picture

Good on ya Phil! The Australian/Canadian/Scandinavian models put the lie to the arguments against a decent living wage for all.  There is enough wealth on this planet to ensure that no one needs to live in extreme poverty. Those with an Ann Rand perspective should note that poverty results in disease and crime that threatens everyone...it is in the interests of all to eradicate poverty.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:50 | 4442759 besnook
besnook's picture

omg! what a stretch. the reason there is a push for minimum wage increases is because no one is affected by it. it has become politically expedient because no one cares. besides, if a rise in minimum wage were to increase the need for any substitute it would be illegal immigrants and cash workers.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:52 | 4442763 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"Another illustration from outside the labor market is the support of corn farmers, corn syrup processors, and those in their communities for restrictions on sugar imports from other countries. By substantially raising the price of sugar in the U.S., the policy has driven many candy makers and the jobs they create outside the U.S., harming those workers and their communities. But it has raised the price of a substitute for corn syrup, increasing demand for corn syrup and the inputs that go into making it, benefiting those in corn-producing states."

Where oh where is my LTER?  Oh where oh where Cali beef?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:57 | 4442772 Being Free
Being Free's picture

Bottom line...it ain't the fucking governments job to set wages.  Though I'm not surprised that when they try the just screw things up.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:56 | 4442919 artless
artless's picture

Bottom line...

The government (or anyone else for that matter) DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to decide what one party will sell his labor for in voluntary agreement with another party.

There fixed it for ya.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:00 | 4442773 MagicMoney
MagicMoney's picture

Increasing the minimum wage increases cost substitution. This is why unions support a higher minimum wage. They don't want to compete with other workers who would do the job for cheaper prices, even though they are not as quality workers. Minimum wage laws have thier blowbacks, and unintended consequences. Just like corporations who get stronger with regulations that choke off the competition, because they already grew big before such regulations were passed, or did so with minimal competition, it ensures they have less competition in the future. No different from minimum wage laws. A corporation like Wal Mart would pay their workers a higher wage with higher minimum wage laws, it simply makes other small companies start up, and grows costs more unbearable than that of Wal Mart. 

 

Such laws reduce competition, when you reduce competition, you get the status quo, you get less vibrant economy, and more monopolies, and monoliths that hang around for years with nothing to challenge them. 

 

Employers ultimately can do cost substitution of employees, like employ machines instead, because employees are too expensive, especially for low profitable activities. Multi nationals can pay the cost of minimum wage cost comparatively to that of small firms. Consumers decide prices, if employers raise prices too much, consumers may opt to buy something else deemed of more value than what they are offering. Thus they lose customers, thus profits, and possible have no business at all, thus no jobs. No customer would pay 10 dollars for a 8 ounce glass of lemonade from a lemonstand stand with the current real purchasing power in USD, they more likely spend their money on something else of higher satisfaction, and pass it up.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:10 | 4442800 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

If your discussing that America can't compete with China because of a raise in minimum wage you actually say America is already down the shiiters.

If there's no difference between a 50 dollar a hour worker and a 1 dollar a hour worker, America should just implode.

If America can't make the difference, people should move to countries that can still make the difference.

"No customer would pay 10 dollars for a 8 ounce glass of lemonade..."
...
Really? are you a freaking idiot?
My god... people like you make me sick.

I make 120 dollar a hour. And why does my boss pay me that? Because I make the company more money than that.
And that's how the economy goes.
If a company needs slave wages to compete... close the shop.

And most Americans are as fat as a cow. I don't think it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask 10 bucks for a cola.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:17 | 4442822 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Close down fast food outlets, amusement parks, ect. Every 16 to 20 year old looking for a summer job can just suck it. Whose is the idiot again? Oh right, the guy paying you $120/hr.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:23 | 4442834 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

1. yes, close down fast food outlets. at least 9 out of 10 at least.
America needs to learn to eat normal food that doesn't turn people into fat slobs.

2. As a student I was a electrician, worked in a metal shop, a graphic designer...
I didn't want to do stupid jobs like working ina fast food outlet.
Teach your kids some proud. And if you lack them, at least help them find a person who can teach them proud because you clearly lack those skills.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:05 | 4442890 Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

Apparently, your parents never taught you english.

That point aside, kids/people don't need to beg your fucked up ass for permission or confirmation to eat what they want, or work whatever job they want. You worked where you wanted as a teen punk, others can work in warehouses or fast food, and if people are too fat for you, well nobody's making you look at them or fuck them.  It's not your business what they do, who they do, or what they eat.

You sound the same as every big-govt-humping control-happy piece of liberty-hating shit on the planet.  That means you are a fucking tyranny-enabling cunt.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:34 | 4443034 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Pretty good English for someone from Europe.  In fact, better than yours.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:03 | 4443299 Tapeworm
Tapeworm's picture

-1 for foul language.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:00 | 4442933 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Arrogance is the hallmark of a fool. I applaud your accomplishments, but not everyone is as gifted as you claim to be. It is great that there are opportunities for everyone earn a living whether they relatively untrained and lack skills, or they have mental limitations that would preclude them from a higher calling. My children were lifeguards, tutors, engineering interns and one did work at Chipotle. Oh, the horror! I agree that we eat too much unhealthy food, but your proposal to close down 90% of fast food establishments is silly. My children are humble for the most part even though they have accomplished much and I am glad for that.

I just had an employee who turned in his resignation on Friday. He was the best technically, but lacked humility, empathy and kept to himself. He did not delegate and had trouble acknowledging errors. He was seen as stubborn by clients. He is taking a job that will require much more interaction with people in a field where you need to check your ego at the door. I wish him well, but feel that he may have a very difficult time adjusting.

If you are still young, you may be able to successfully work on being more humble. The world changes and with it technology. Our bodies and minds slow down and become less sharp. The young staff nip at our heels and want their chance. Arrogance and pride can accelerate you being ousted from a good gig and make it harder to land on your feet again. Good luck.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:22 | 4442826 MagicMoney
MagicMoney's picture

No they wouldn't. Because consumers have limited cash balances, or limited income. Consumers don't have unlimited money, or unlimited purchasing power. They pick, and choose what is of value, or the level of value of one good compared to other goods. If you say otherwise, you simply don't live in the real world.  This is why people shop at Wal Mart versus K-Mart whether you like it or not. Consumers determine prices. The reason why consumer pick, and choose which goods they spend thier money on is because there real income is scarce, so they economize on what to buy, they rank goods on the order of most urgent wants.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:50 | 4442900 besnook
besnook's picture

you don't seem to understand the real world application of theory. the power of advertising, the power of persuasion, causes everyone to act against their interests at some time or another, some are affected all the time. apple products are an ideal example for this time, pet rocks are another brilliant piece of willfully wasting money. wal mart uses very sophisticated systems to get their customers to spend money on stuff they don't need for prices they can't afford. big retailers also use sophisticated systems to charge the maximum they are able to. consumers only determine prices on the margins. the companies determine prices for the ignorant(most consumers) because the ignorant don't know better. the antique collectible business is a great example of knowledge trumping ignorance in prices on the sell and buy side.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:54 | 4442913 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Consumers determine prices. The reason why consumer pick, and choose which goods they spend thier money on is because there real income is scarce, so they economize on what to buy, they rank goods on the order of most urgent wants.

This is all well and good until you recognize that commodities / labour are priced globally which entirely changes the consumer dynamic. If all the inputs came from the same general region with same overarching laws as the consumer your argument would make sense, but that's not the case. 

Otherwise known as 'the race to the bottom.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:53 | 4442912 artless
artless's picture

@Sudden Debt

"If a company needs slave wages to compete... close the shop."

Ummm, slaves do not get wages. Nice twisting of language ro make the emotiuonally laced, irrational point. Just like you've been spoonfed by Big Media to do. I'll bet you also think things like a "right" to healthcare.

Try again. And yes America is long down the shitters. But not because we don't pay burger flippers $10/hr or even that the rest of my countrymen are fat ass overpaid slobs many of whom are so entirely unaware of how much they are at the teat of society at large that it would come as quite a shock to them if all went away one day.

Which it will.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:31 | 4443027 PhilofOz
PhilofOz's picture

I read somewhere that when slavery ended for many former slaves they were far worse off. They had their freedom, but they no longer had a roof over their head or food on their plate. If you're getting $7.25 an hour and all your wages go into having just a place to sleep and no chance of ever getting ahead, how are you any better off than how a lot of slaves had it? It gets worse as the market for labor gets even more competitive. I guess for some it does not matter as long as the profits keep up by paying their workers a shit wage... but eventually they will have to pay the piper.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:53 | 4443097 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

''By far the greatest part of the land,' said Owen when the row had ceased, 'is held by people who have absolutely no moral right to it. Possession of much of it was obtained by means of murder and theft perpetrated by the ancestors of the present holders. In other cases, when some king or prince wanted to get rid of a mistress of whom he had grown weary, he presented a tract of our country to some 'nobleman' on condition that he would marry the female. Vast estates were also bestowed upon the remote ancestors of the present holders in return for real or alleged services.'

 

You never had any chance.

 

The odds are always stacked against you.

 

There are only two ways.

 

1. Take from them that which they stole form others (and become them)

 

2. Not participate in their game.

 

Choose your side carefully

 

(the socios have decided it is in their best interests to string up the players)

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:08 | 4443686 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Maybe unions support minimum wage increases because they are made up of working people instead of large shareholders in McDonalds or Wal-Mart.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:01 | 4442779 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

It's called protecting the purchasing power.

Evil bastards are against it and will tell you 500 reasons why minimum wage should be a penny.

People who are against this are idiots.

OH NO,MY 1 DOLLAR HAMBURGER THAT GIVES A FAT ASS WILL COST 10 CENTS MORE!!!
EVIL!!!

Those who complain for a increase of a few cents even doubling a dollar hamburgur cost because poor people get a bit more should be thrown of a cliff.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:02 | 4442786 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Whose an idiot?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:09 | 4442803 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

if you have to ask it's probably you :)

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:14 | 4442816 tgatliff
tgatliff's picture

I doubt prices would increase. Fast food prices are determined by what the consumer will pay and by competition. All increasing minimum wage would do is increase automation. Meaning, fewer jobs and more automation.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:59 | 4443123 Marco
Marco's picture

It increases the speed of automation, not automation in and of itself ... nothing a year or so of technological improvement can't accomplish any way.

The issue of automation is an argument for either subsidized jobs or for basic wage (or for saying "fuck you got mine" I guess). Not for a given level of minimum wage.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:01 | 4442783 4 Freedoms
4 Freedoms's picture

I think it's time to start a thread, talking about regulating "the maximum wage."  And, please, don't hate the player, hate the game.....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:04 | 4442789 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

as i remember from my youth, having a minimum wage just meant that all unskilled labor payed the minimum wage

if you liked being outside you worked as a carpenter or landscaping

otherwise you became  a cashier

both payed the same

logically it should have payed more to be lowest tier carpentry as it was the hardest job and required the most brain power

having a minimum wage just made that THE wage

ultimately pizza delivery was the best job, providing the minimum plus a shot at tips

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:10 | 4443691 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Carpenters are not unskilled labor. If you think they are, then go build a stairway.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:04 | 4442791 forrestdweller
forrestdweller's picture

my new plan is to convert the salary of an average working person to one bowl of food a day and a bed at nigt (in mass dorms).

i think this is better than money anyway, with inflation and all.

i wrote a letter to the president, and i am still waiting for his positive response.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:16 | 4443164 PhilofOz
PhilofOz's picture

Oh come on, two bowls a day, otherwise output would suffer.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:29 | 4442796 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

Empirical data does negate the efficacy of price controls but I don't see in the article where price controls commanded by the federal government are, or are not,  constitutional.

By listing examples against the efficacy, then implicitly the premise is accepted that the federal government has the authority to control any prices at all; it does not. 

Per the tenth amendment, price controls such as minimum wage laws are to be determined per state if at all.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:11 | 4442808 4 Freedoms
4 Freedoms's picture

I think it's best to get old school on the wage question:  Minimum wage is one ounce of pure silver per hour.  Maximum wage is one ounce of pure gold per hour.  What say you all?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:12 | 4442812 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

The miners in my portfolio like your proposal...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:05 | 4442953 4 Freedoms
4 Freedoms's picture

Then, I just might run for Prez in '16....on the "Sound Money and Fair Wages" platform.  Who should I select as VP so I don't get shot?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:51 | 4443088 I Write Code
I Write Code's picture

Can I be your pool boy?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:47 | 4443256 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

funny, i was just talking about this the other day here, but no one seemed willing to trade their silver away for anything.   personally, in this stage of the game, i'd be willing to give/take 2 64 Kennedy 1/2's in exchange for an hour of time, regardless of its "price" measured by FRNs.   that's about ~.8 oz of silver.

the practical limitations of this is that there isn't enough gold/silver on the planet to implement this scheme.     the only way this could possibly work is to deflate everything down to an 1oz. of silver/gold per day min/max and then have silver valued closer to historical averages.   still not enough but at least it's getting closer.

it's an interesting hypothetical to wrap one's mind around though, if only to help remove oneself from the trap of using the FRN as the unit of account for everything.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:15 | 4442820 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I wish the Mises institute would stop wasting their energy posting these theories about minimum wage. 

There is more bang for buck for them tackling the major financial issues of the world, but no, another Mises institute theoretician is going to pontificate about the purity of having no friggin minimum wage laws.

Great, the world will go belly up and Mises can feel virtuous about never succumbing to the wrong view on minimum wage... 

Take on a Bankster or two you egg heads...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:50 | 4442974 MagicMoney
MagicMoney's picture

Singapore does not have any minimum wage laws. Yet there is no acute poverty there.... Countries with high minimum wage have very high teenage unemployment & people on welfare. Hong Kong had no minimum wage laws either. Neither did China for a while. Yet they had a society where people had opportunity to climb the economic ladder and have higher wages. Not all jobs are equal. Not all jobs are equal in pay. Don't like the real world, then you must want the utopia of communism. This has been debated over, and over ad nausem, I wish people who claim increasing the minimum wage increases prosperity would simply give up on a argument that doesn't manifest realistically with their ideal dreams. If the logic that increasing the minimum wage creates prosperity with no trade offs, why not increase it 100 times over in one swoop, and prove it? Why don't politicians do this? Because they know it does come at expense. Can't handle the fact that that things are unequal., well go move to Venezuela, or Cuba, somewhere, maybe you will be happier over there.

 

You also conflate poverty with wages. Poverty is a result of poor jobs, and poor productivity. There is poor african nations & other nations, because they don't have any real productivity. Their goods, and services are low, few, and between. You got the whole economics of wages totally wrong. Higher wages doesn't create economic prosperity, it's goods, and services. If raising wages arbitrarily creates a better economy, why doesn't the United Nations raise wages for africans??? Because it doesn't work. Doesn't everybody want human society to be not poor??? Must be some conspiracy for people to keep other people poor...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:06 | 4443126 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

Things are definitely not equal in the communist worker paradises of Venezuela or Cuba. The crony communist elites at the top have all the wealth while everyone else is poor as shit. Maduro and his cronies have an ample supply of the softest toilet paper to wipe their fat asses with, but the poor in Venezuela have to use their hands to wipe becuase they can't get toilet paper!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:13 | 4443159 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

"You also conflate poverty with wages. "

Nonsense.  I think Mises should stop blathing about theoretical nonsense that matters cents on the dollar. 
WTF dpes Mises say about malinvestments like corruption and croneyism on WS and the US Government. 

Stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:02 | 4443297 artless
artless's picture

"WTF dpes Mises say about malinvestments like corruption and croneyism on WS and the US Government."

If you had to ask you must not know who the fuck Mises was. Try picking up a book. He answered all these questions decades ago.

There was also a Congressman from Texas who juts retired whose been shotuing the stuff from the rooftops for decades as well. Pure 100% unadulterated Mises, Austian Economics.

ZH picks up small articles here and there. Go to Mises.org and there you will find quite a bit more than min wage arguments.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:01 | 4443666 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I seem to be having trouble getting my point across, but I doubt you will listen to anything not brownosingly positive of Mises.....

I am mad at Mises for wasting precious bandwith with an issue that is not of the same magnitude.  You say they have covered it years ago. 

Wage minimums have not really changed as a plan in 40+ years. 

WS Corruption has increased 100 if not 1000 fold in those years, so it would make sense to say that Mises has not had any positive effect on that.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:32 | 4443314 Bob
Bob's picture

Yes, it's clear that the whole lot of them are either well paid propagandists or psychopathic cunts in it for the thrill. 

I'd guess it's both.  The oligarchs are circling in for the kill and these fucks are their sharks-for-hire.  The money must. flow. upward.  All of it, if possible . . .  to "the deserving."  Every fucking Mickey D franchisee fancies himself another Galt. 

Of course, that makes the parasite mega-rich financiers Gods. 

Scorn the grubby money-grubbing little man. 

It's pretty much all sentiment and group think.  Slap the "Liberty" label on it and it's done. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:23 | 4443181 Marco
Marco's picture

Their supplemental income program (WIS) has had huge expansions in the last couple of years though (especially in the amount of money it pays out in cash, before most of it went to social security). Seems the free market needs a little help after all.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:07 | 4443308 artless
artless's picture

@ MagicMoney

"Singapore does not have any minimum wage laws" 

Correct me if I am wrong but neither does Germany.

Best fucking post on this thread by far.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:17 | 4442823 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

Advocates for higher wages are not being precluded from simply paying those they do business with more.

Avoid sales.   Pay full price.   Never haggle.  

Tip every cashier, every waiter, every delivery person, every doorman, every...

No One is stopping YOU from raising wages by paying more VOLUNTARILY.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:52 | 4443268 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

exactly, wage/price fixing of any kind is simply another way to assist individuals in avoiding personal responsibility.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:14 | 4443706 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

What a stupid comment. If I paid more for a Big Mac, McDonalds corporation would make more profit. Why exactly do you think the guy making fries would be paid more?

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:10 | 4442836 Wait What
Wait What's picture

edit

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:42 | 4442878 Mad Muppet
Mad Muppet's picture

Something this way comes.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYjgicQOJU

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:48 | 4442887 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Slaves never suffered from unemployment, and the master provided food, shelter and religious instruction. Sundays the slave could lay about and enjoy their hobbies, with never a worry about job security, layoffs or being forced to pay union dues. In fact, many maintain, even today, that slavery was a much maligned economic system. History has shown that the higher a wage the slaves are paid, the fewer jobs are available, as you see, the slave south had no unemployement for those willing to work in the free slave market.  Modern neo-liberal economics, which is practiced by Republican and Democratic politicians, is trying to return to a free market for labor, where government does not intervene in the labor and capital wage equation, where illegal unions are not allowed to bully and threaten the negotiations between an individual and the owners. Wages are to be set by what the market will determine, and today, for the unskilled, that labor market rate is under $7.00 and hour, left to free negotiation, unskilled labor probably would command $4.25, because that is about where it would all shake out given a real free market. That is still much, much higher than the world standard for unskilled work, so the US citizen still enjoys a heavy premium for being American.

Since employers in the retail and fast food business can only get so many illegal immigrants, and workers must reside near enough to the job to be able to ge there, the pool of willing labor to flip burgers in limited, this is what commands the wage premium over foreign labor. Burger flipping comes in at around what $7.00 an hour and up to $8.00 where workers are scarce?

By all means, free markets in labor should be allowed to work. The only question left then is "Should other markets be free?" Or is this reserved for labor?  I suspect, from reading the above article, and many responses, that the answer is no, and that labor is too demanding, while capital is over regulated and over taxed, compared to say 50 years ago. That too much of corporate income is diverted to labor and managers, bond holders and stock owners are short changed by greedy American labor.

Since all income growth goes and has gone, for many years to a small 1% of Americans, the owners, I would think that the neo-liberal school of economics is working, the lower and middle classes have had a shrinking income and lowered benefits package for decades now, while the fruits of higher productivity have gone, and this is provable, to that 1% of the owner class. My only question is, is labor really ripping off capital? Are they truly greedy and grasping and killing job creation by their demands? What would be an acceptable wage and an acceptable income growth distribution, or is there, as neo-liberals contend, no such thing as too small of a share to labor.

In the end, corporate America can earn money three ways. They can get government contracts and thus leech off of the tax payer, this is one way to make good earnings. The second is to go into financial engineering, we saw this with many corporations pre 2008, many dumped manufacturing overseas and replaced their US operations with finance divisions. The third is to produce a product for the market place, produce it at lowest input costs and distribute it to the market place where consumers buy the items, the difference between production and distribution costs and price and volume determine corporate profits. Smart money like Goldman, does financial engineering, smart money produces weapons and spy machines and services the military/spy complex that encircles the globe via US government tax revenue financing, the third way requires consumers to come into the stores and by the corporate products, those things you see advertized all over TV. To my way of thinking, the third way to profit is the one under threat, as consumers making between $5-$10 dollars and hour are going to be piss poor consumers, of anything but basic food, clothes and shelter, not much disposable income to harvest there!

This is why I see future corporate profits as being military industrial complex related, this spending is well north of 1 trillion dollars a year, and profit centers based on finance and insurance, here the gains are unlimited because of money printing and QE. The third way is a sink hole and wages are now in terminal decline, and myself, the consumer is a dying breed, the graph of income data and income growth show this beyond any debate, the comsumer is now in the top 1-10%, the 90% are losing consumer spending abilities. America is headed even more so into being a vast military/spy camp and financial and insurance fraud machine. How long we can last without wealth creation and consumer spending is anyones guess.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:58 | 4442920 Wait What
Wait What's picture

"profit centers based on finance and insurance"

it seems you had an epiphany about why most of the money in the world goes into financial products. it's the easiest money you can make.

1. get money from fed

2. lend it at interest/sell insurance

3. sit back

4. count your profits

5. rinse and repeat

why do you think a failed business model like the US Post Office wants to become your payday lender? it has access to taxpayer capital and wants to make some easy money.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:17 | 4442987 Musashi Miyamoto
Musashi Miyamoto's picture

I agree with you that real marker price for unskilled labor in the US is ~$5/hr. At 40 hours a week it is just barely enough to afford a SRO, a bus pass and a stedy diet of rice, beans and pennutbutter.

But hey, at least we don't get whipped on the job...

Fowards to the free market paradise...!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:00 | 4443099 MagicMoney
MagicMoney's picture

Yet, you have people living on food stamps still with no job....I know people who don't own a car, they ride their bikes here in the USA. This was much more common in China, but now the Chinese are having more cars.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:21 | 4443176 Musashi Miyamoto
Musashi Miyamoto's picture

at the $200 a month level the only difference is the lack of daily beating. Am i better off here harased by the pigs ever single day panhandling for bread?

The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. if minimum wage was abolished tommorrow i fail to see how things would get any better. Moar jobs? how is a 5X7 with a cot, ramen and a bus pass any better than european serfdom? because you get to watch TV at the end of the day? is that it?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:59 | 4442915 etienno
etienno's picture

_

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 17:57 | 4442918 etienno
etienno's picture

"A similar illustration came from South Africa, under apartheid."

How can an apartheid example be relevant as an argument against minimal wage?! Oh wait, not so long ago, in 1860, 13% of the US population were also slaves.

Knowing that, I understand some might think that rising the minimal wage is criminal. Who wants to pay its burger 10 cent more when they can simply steal the work force of an entire "race"?

The mimimum wage in Ontario Canada is 11$ per hour, and for most canadian it's not such a big deal.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:02 | 4442947 billwilson
billwilson's picture

More BS. Unreal how ZH keeps posting this drivel

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:03 | 4442949 Its_the_economy...
Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

Since the FED was made law, inflation has gobbled everything. Minimum wage laws are a feeble attempt at abating the effects of monetization of DEBT. Something must be done.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:07 | 4442956 sangell
sangell's picture

I would also bet a lot of non profit social service agencies benefit. If you run a homeless shelter, foodbank, job counseling you name the 'good cause' and receive government grants the more unemployed, incomeless, destitute people you serve the more grant money you can request and since an agency director serving 5000 people has more 'responsibility' than one serving 1000 people he/she can be paid more for helping the poor. Don't think that non profit organization managers don't make good money. They do.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:41 | 4443042 Musashi Miyamoto
Musashi Miyamoto's picture

In this city the big mission gets its funding through an unholly alliance of city government and large cristian groups...

2 decades ago it was moved to the shittiest, cheapest, industrial part of town inconviently located far away from any public transportation...

In companion with strong vagrancy and panhandling laws, Doing the city a service of keeping the underclass away from the "hardworking normanl people" its program is specifically designed to keep you there all day long. Here homeless are litterally stuffed into rooms at firecode cappacity all day long, rows and collums of stiff seats facing ever fowards preached to by merciful undestanding pastors. You see, in this house of refuge it is Jesus who protects us from the cold and the knawing bite of hunger. In line for food the loving staff shuffles us fowards by the hundreds to recieve, i kid you not, a bowl of gruel and a slice of bread. togeather we are alloted 10 silant minutes to consume gods meal before herded back into the day room, staring blankly into the distance until the next sermon...

At night we are provided rows of bunks of prison cots with a sheet to keep us warm. we keep our shoes under the mattress for neck support but also because shoes get stollen all the time...

You see the director of the mission makes more than the mayor of the city because creating such an atmosphere of love and healing takes tireless work and compassion so rare it brings tears to your eyes...

How many people read oliver twist? "Please sir, can i have s'more fucking porige?"...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:13 | 4442965 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I know how special interest groups benefitted from NO labour wage control in the past : They went and saw Foxconn.

The whole Chindia meme since 1980s is a debasement of labour wages in first world to serve the 1%.

The world needs to move out of globalization of US NWO to reset the world trade on a global model where we not only use WTO guidelines but also those that have been neglected in the past : the ILO** guidelines.

The Reagan and Thatcher mantra totally bypassed all ILO guidelines when they REframed GATT (created 1947), now called WTO, that "non regulates" the Oligarchy world and gave China its favored status as world factory; all to the benefit of the Nike-Apple-Walmart model in China and Microsoft-Citibank model in India.

** : The ILO was founded in 1919, in the wake of a destructive war, to pursue a vision based on the premise that universal, lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice. The ILO became the first specialized agency of the UN in 1946.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:36 | 4443038 artless
artless's picture

Just for the record who gave China its Most Favored Nation Trading Status.

That would be Bubba (Clinton for the unwashed). Just one election after explicitly saying he would not. And when was that? Oh, yeah the 90's. When even "conservatives" say were "good times" And everyone piled on and got theirs (yes all you fucks in the financial world) and now bitch and moan about "jobs being sent overseas".

Now due to technology much more than TVs and Ishit can be done "offshore" Shit BMW "offshored" the building of cars to Tennessee for fucks sake! Why? PRICE. What about all the poor Germans who lost their jobs? 

Guess those folks just had to MAKE THEMSELVES VALUABLE TO THE MARKET IN SOME OTHER WAY.

Sorry but this country, or Germeny for that matter does not owe you a job. If you CHOOSE to be a laborer in order to aquire you wants and needs in life it is up to you to make yourself valuable to those in need of that labor. And you are at the mercy of what the market decides the value of that labor is worth just like any other producer of a commodity is.

Of course if you do not like that price then you can at any time you so choose find another market for your labor or modify your skill set to increase the value (and hence price) of your labor.

It's that simple folks. Continue to muddy the waters with all the 99% vs 1% talk, income inequality, living wage crap, etc. Raise the fucking min wage to $20/hr. It will make no difference.

And for the record I am a lifelong wage earner.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:09 | 4442966 goldhedge
goldhedge's picture

Who is John Galt?

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:10 | 4442972 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

Ha, Ha, Ha,

 

what fuckin idiots you are to equate a 'minimum' wage to any economic disinvestment.

 

The 'minimum wage' downsizes current wages to the minimum (ie. the market rate, bitchez)

The minimum wage is the target wage.

 

Before the minimum, the minimum was higher than the minimum. (how f'in hard can this be)

 

Why can the POTUS raise the minimum, it is because he will print so that the minimum is a pay cut.

 

(what kind of a fucked up bubble do you people have to be livin' in where the Man says YES, it means NO and you cheer anyway)

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:17 | 4442989 artless
artless's picture

Once again every last fucking comment on this topic displays the time honored tradition in our dumbfuck nation's politics to profoundly miss the most important aspect of the debate and argue the mnay sides with worthless platitudes based on crackpot economics, pointless staitics, and hyperbole.

Okay now everyone let's all just let this sink in. No individual, group of individuals, government, or what have you has the right to dictate the price at which a FREE PERSON sells his labor to ANYONE so long as that transaction is voluntary.

Every other point all y'all want to make it irrelevant.

But since we're on that note I'll continue by responding to both idiotic sides of the debate. I can get charts, graphs, or statistics that empirically demonstrate that when the min wage is raised umemployment-especially in low skilled workers- rises. I can also get charts, graphs, and staitsics that emprically state that when workers take home more wages they consume/spend more.

Big fucking deal. Argue it all you want. I'll refer to the beginning of this post. Nothing else matters. And along that line no group of people have the right to deny another group of people or an individual of selling his labor or engaging in voluntay trade/contarcts with another. Union folks, non right to work states that's you. Syndicates, unions, trade guilds and the like are ANTITHETICAL to a free society. Indeed they are hallmark to the very most unfree societies throughout history. Just look at the wage law and union/guild history of the US and you will find the genesis of these ideas as racist, exclusionary, etc in order to exclude either unfavored immigrant classes or unfavored hereditary traits. And unlike all the bullshit monetrayist at best / Keynesian at worst economic analysis written here regarding this topic, this history is fact and does not depend on some irrelevant micro/macro chart slapped together by another academic holed up in some ivory tower with a bunch of formulas and theories.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:30 | 4443000 falak pema
falak pema's picture

utopia : the ivory tower is yours.

In your world Don Corleone (feudal) rules according to "possession 9/10 of the law" since the beginning of history. "Free man"..."free labour"...tell that to the Apaches, friend. They were free in an empty continent no longer empty today.

Its the COUNTER model of bottom up revolution that brought a semblance of democracy and republic to Don Corleone's world in post industrial urban civilization, not your hopium. That power struggle of class is the basis of the social contract we call democracy and republic (in England since 1215).

So please wake up. The world has moved back to the Don Corleone model in a big way and "freedom" is now an illusion. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:23 | 4443183 artless
artless's picture

Falak Pema:

See the posts below. I have no illusion that The United States is a free country. That went away long before you or I were born.

I do however maintain that I am a free man and regardless if the current environment is to my liking or not, I still have choices. There is always a choice. Might not like em all but...

The feudal analogy is just fine. Correct in many ways. But the opposition is directed at the wrong parties and focusing on the wrong solutions. Until we address the moral and philosphical basis for these problems they will continue to evelve in a circular logic and get nowhere.

I don't quite understand the Apache comment but at no point did I, do I, or will I endorse the use of violence, force, or coercion in achieving anything unless in the action of self defense. That would be immoral. Hence why minimum wage laws are immoral. Ultimately they are enforced at the tip of a nayonet or the barrel of a gun. Good with that? Sorry, I'm not.

We cannot change History. The genocide of the Apache and many other tribes cannot be undone just like we can't have a do over of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. We can only make sure it never happens again.

Oh and for the record I find the vanted god of democracy a sort fo failure and I've yet to see this social contact fo which so many speak. I certainly never signed it.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:34 | 4443384 Marco
Marco's picture

Property rights are enforced at the barrel of a gun as well ...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:25 | 4443752 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

not in an anarcho-capitalist society. There would already be reverence for private property and recognition of contracts and inherited property. Yes more private defense agencies would be the case but they would have to compete on effectiveness and integrity, etc. and it would be better than a monopoly with moral hazards galore as it's not business done at voluntary but by the point of a gun. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:32 | 4443030 Harry Dong
Harry Dong's picture

Listen jerk. Give me a level playing field and I'll bury the competition with my 20/hr helpers. Cut the billionaire's subsidies and let's hear them cry, that's not fair!

You couldn't handle a free world if it hits you in the face.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:10 | 4443149 artless
artless's picture

@ H Domg

And in response to the "real world" crap ad hom attack: I h\ave lived in the real world for all of my 45 years. I began working at 13. I have never taken a dime from anyone, any government or the like. I have never had any sort of job security, retirement plan, benefit package, scheduled wage, or any other lala land employment standard considered normal in this ass backward country. I have been part of the wage earning population all my life.

At what point did I ever support any sort of subsidy? At what point did I suggest that you should or should not pay whomever you want 20/hr?

I have no illusion that this is a free country. The Unted States is a Neo-Fascist Police State wholely owned by the politically and financially connected. Your statement regarding "a level playing field" suggests you either believe in no government interference in the voluntary trade between men or you want that armed third party to grant YOU favors or a boost so that you are on that perceived "level playing field".

Which one is it?

Reducing that principle to the individual, namely me let's say, should I demand a "level playiong field" when I was trying for contracts as a footballer in Germany as an American goalkeeper? SHould the Germen born goalkeepers with whom I was competing have been required to not speak Germen with the other teammates since MY German ws not up to par? Or should the other German born gaolkeeers have had their knee blown out with a double MCL/LCL tear so that we'd be "on a level playing feild" when I tried out with their club?

Shall I go on? I think I shall. Sinec the whole fairness and level playing field thing is a bif meme right now I'll give you another anecdote. After spending two decades perfecting my skill as a master printer (photgraphy) Epson and HP decided that they could make glorified copy machines into "printers" and compete with the century old skilled profession oif darkroom printing and graphic art printing. As my tiny little portion of the market and my livlihood was eliminated should I have received some sort of benefit or the like to "level the playing field"? Or perhaps some law or restriction should have been placed on Epson-perhaps they only produce color images maybe, leaving me the "market" on B&W-from bringing their product into the market?

I think not. Sure I got slammed. By that's REALITY. No one has any right to any subsidy. PERIOD.

But on that note their is no "level playing field" It's a fucking fairytale for those who do not live in Literalville or as you say the real world that hasn't apparently hit me in the face. You know the one that kept colege out of my reach. The one that eliminated my business market. The one that kept me from playing professional sports. The one that buried me with personal debt because of a socialized/cartelized medical system in the US when I had an accident. The one that grossly inflates my rent in Brooklyn because of fascist rent control and rent subsidies that distort the market price system.

The very same reality about which I do not complain as do so many others with their cries for fairmess and equlality.

Shall I go on?

Maybe you should stick to the actual debate and not throw out ad hom attacks at those whom you do not know.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:20 | 4443172 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

 

Yest Artless, but that transaction isn't voluntary is it.

 

The fucker in charge won't sell you the goods and because he owns All the goods there is no free market, can I kill the fucker now ?

The fucker deserves it.

You don't agree (some shit to do with property) can I kill you now ?

 

In any fair transaction where both buyer and seller come to the market with good will then the transaction should hold.

Where one party tries to hold some kind of leverage over the other party, all bets are off and the death of one party and the legitimate takeover of assets by the winner should hold fair(wild west)

 

There are very few posters here who understand what the true free market means (I'm in favour of free markets actually, but then I'm a socio and I like to watch you normals kill each other)

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:43 | 4443250 artless
artless's picture

@ Bob Rocket

"Where one party tries to hold some kind of leverage over the other party, all bets are off and the death of one party and the legitimate takeover of assets by the winner should hold fair(wild west)

The fucker in charge won't sell you the goods and because he owns All the goods there is no free market,

can I kill the fucker now ?"

 

So when I was offered a job and the leverage the potential employer held over me was I NEEDED THE JOB TO FEED AND CLOTH MYSELF and he was offering terms I did not quite like...I could kill him in your world? If it works in the scenario you propose it should work in the reverse, no? Actually I wrote a number on a piece of paper for which I would consider taking the for then laughed at him and went and found another form of employment. I figured killing him was a bit severe I guess.

The "fucker in charge" who "owns all the goods". Haven't seen that one in my life. Maybe when this house of cards comes down and there is societal collapse you might find pockets of that. But then the blame of that collapse can be placed at the foot of coercive government and a fascist montery sytem so...

"In any fair transaction where both buyer and seller come to the market with good will then the transaction should hold."

This is not English. Please rewrite this sentence and I can respond to it.

The POTUS printing money and making the min wage increase pointless that you mentioned above is spot on. But here you lost me. Sorry I do not view free markets as necessarily The Wild West. Indeed the actula WIld West wasn't really all that wild in real terms. Much of it was fairytale. In many cases the criminal and violent behavior was FAR LESS than what we see today and all without much of any form of "supervison", "regulation" or "police".

Sorry but I think that in the abscence of the eveil that is government you will be lacking in the entertainment value you seek as a "socio" by watching us "normals" kill each other.

And just for the record I took that etst to and I'm a very, very high scoring "socio". It's a bunch of horseshit.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:05 | 4443303 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

'he was offering terms I did not quite like...I could kill him in your world?'

 

No, he was not stopping you touting your wares to any other prospective employer, you and he retained the rights to negotiate in a free market (where other participants were free to offer other terms)

 

If the prospective employer, knowing your skill set, tried to gain a monopoly purchaser position in order to exploit that position then that is fair enough, that employer must also understand that your position as prospective employee should in the same market be to disable his monopoly thereby ensuring the freedom of all participants. That one of your skills that you are not currently marketing is as a sharpshooter should not overly worry this wouldbe monopolist.

 

The short answer is Yes.

 

Life is common and the price is low, when life becomes scarce then the price will rise

 

free market bitchez

 

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:30 | 4443369 Marco
Marco's picture

Lets assume government didn't grant unions special rights for a moment.

Joining an union is voluntarily entering into a contract. An exclusivity agreement between that union and a company? Again simply a voluntary contract.

You can only outlaw unions by government cohercion ...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:58 | 4443461 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

Artless

'No individual, group of individuals, government, or what have you has the right to dictate the price at which a FREE PERSON sells his labor to ANYONE so long as that transaction is voluntary.'

 

If they own all the means of production, they can offer you a wage they dictate or you can starve, no coercion here.

 

You seem to believe that they gained the monopoly on the means of production by fair methods, they didn't.

Them and their kind got them firstly by theft and favour, they secured them by legislation and monopolise them by regulation.

They would rather see you die from sartvation and privation than allow you one red cent.

They hold their cattle (that they must feed and fend for) in more esteem than you 'free' people, they  had more regard for you when they owned you.

 

So believe what you will about your rightful place and value in the free market, the truth is (not that it will do you any good to know this) You are a resource, a bit like gold but more trouble and less durable.

 

You are either making money for them or you aren't and if you aren't then you are invisible (starving or not)

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 22:47 | 4443835 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

"All hail allegiance to contracts." What utter bullshit.

Please explain how two unequal parties can reach a voluntary contract. If I don't work I starve. So on what planet is my contracting to sell my labor "voluntary?" It's actually mandatory that I contract to sell my labor, or I die.

So now that we have put the lie to the "voluntary" part, let's look at contracts between unequal parties. Go pull out a cell phone, cable, or credit card contract. What terms did you bargain for as an equal party to the contract?. I'll tell you, "fucking zero." You didn't bargain for one term in any of these multi-page contracts. Read any of them. The other party can do what it wants, and you have even given up your right to sue them.

The "contract" stuff might sound great, but in the real world, it means you are a slave to the corporations that already control everything.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 11:36 | 4444850 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Hey Artless, what you spew only makes sense in a FREE MARKET. Please enlighten us all and tell us where this free market exists. Certainly not in the USA where regulations and subsidies of all kinds abound. So, unless you can tell us where a free market exists on this planet, your words of wisdom are anything but.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:26 | 4443013 Harry Dong
Harry Dong's picture

What a load of tripe.

Australia min wage is 16,.88 per hour. Need I say more?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:46 | 4443071 artless
artless's picture

Australia is also about to go off the fucking cliff.

MArk my words.Bubble inflationary economy that's going to blow up. The min wage fairy tale is just a symptom. Price controls have never and will never succeed over time.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:44 | 4443251 PhilofOz
PhilofOz's picture

It might go over a cliff, but it is certain to be after countries such as the USA.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 13:57 | 4445142 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

Over half the posts on ZH are of "the sky is falling" variety. No one knows the future for either Australia or the US. However, in the present, a $16 dollar an hour wage doesn't seem to have hurt Australia in the slightest. And I'm sure it has helped millions of workers escape poverty.

Here in the US, the people who rule would rather keep low skilled workers in poverty and have taxpayers supply these workers with food stamps, Medicare, subsidized housing, ect. They claim it is unjust to make their employers pay them enough to live on, because shifting the cost onto taxpayers doesn't hurt the employers' bottom line.

And whores like the fuck who wrote the original article above are paid to make you believe it is moral for things to continue the way they are, with working people needing taxpayer help to survive.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:06 | 4443139 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

"if the minimum wage was $8 and the union wage was $40"

 

I'm gonna stop reading right there, wild exaggerations only dilute the point you're trying to make. my point is if min. was to have keep pace with bogus government inflation numbers min. wage would be over $10 an hour.  the reality is that wages have simply not kept pace with the cost of the American lifestyle.

as an example, i moved to California in 1983 and by 1984 i was making $14 an hour in my profession with 3.5 years experience. adjusting that wage for inflation puts that number at $31.40 an hour, my counter part at my best customer is making $34 an hour with 10X the experience i had in 1984 and yet he barley make more income than i did then AND THAT MY FRIEND IS WHY AMERICA IS CIRCLING THE DRAIN.

there's no money for the workers AND is it any wonder why 47% of Americans don't make enough money to even pay taxes??

i find that most people who give financial advice don't really understand how little money most Americans earn

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:08 | 4443145 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

You Z/Hers should read this because this is the UK today

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3608/3608-h/3608-h.htm

 

This will be the US tomorrow

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 00:42 | 4444173 The Joker
The Joker's picture

If you are posting on ZH, doesn't that make you a ZHer too? 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:41 | 4443238 Sechel
Sechel's picture

Rising minimum wage and  a zero interest rate policy just means more automation and layoffs hitting non-skilled and semi-skilled labor the hardest.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:43 | 4443247 Rising Sun
Rising Sun's picture

Fucking goobermint.  Fucking Barry.  Fucking cocksuckers!!!!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:56 | 4443278 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

It's Gary Galles

Submitted by Gary Gelles via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

 

 

He is a paid shill

 

He can hide behind a different name but the payer remains the same.

 

I can't quite understand why these idiots are paid for, thier arguments are weak and dicovering they are paid shills only undermines the promoters goal.

 

Are people so fuckin stupid so as to be taken in by spurious studies authored by bogus professors (these people are no better then quack doctors selling 'instant' remedy)

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 20:47 | 4443430 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

you read the articles?

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 00:25 | 4444132 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Because Ludwin von Mises Institute isn't even a 3rd-rate conservative think tank and the evidence is clear as day that marginal increases in the minimum wage in Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, and individaul  US states don't lead to detectable increases in unemployment even among small businesses.  The data on business investment and profitability is mixed and to be honest we have enough data to know one way or the other because it hasn't been studied enough. 

Any idealogue or zealot is an a-hole and everyone who tells you this is 'common sense' that it leads to great unemployment regardless of studies is an idiot.  Same kind of thinking that stomach ulcers are caused by 'toxins' and stress and not bacteria. 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!