Glenn Reynolds: After Yale, Mizzou, raise the voting age — to 25

[piezoe]

who decides what the min wage should be? Who controls that price? We, the American people have decided that $7.25 is fair. How is that working out? And now, we the people, the government are going to set a new price control? So in your crazy world, the government (we the people) decides what the price of anything should be.

I'm a forex trader so I know how much the value of your dollar fluctuates everyday every minute, and it's a lot. So talking about the value of a dollar and how many of those fluctuating dollars a "worker" should be paid by we the people who are the government is quite comical. Especially when it's not our money, but somebody elses money. Oh yes, we are good at teling others how they should spend their money.

Getting back to it, since money today has no intrinsic value, what difference does it make? Raise it a nickel a quarter, take it out of the hands of the government and the economists who try to tell us what inflation is. The low wage earner knows all too well what inflation is and it has very little to do with what Janet says it is.

All I want to do is get things moving, even if it is just moving from one pocket to the other.

Or we can wait for you to make a big deal about moving it from $7.25 to $10.10 ob and as soon as you raise it and proclaim your victory over the evil employers, it will immediatly be "not enough" because no matter how much you give, it is never enough.

The private sector operates on at least some kind fiscal prudence, but the government operates on total greed. No matter how much you give them (us the people) it is never enough. And they (we) won't be happy until they have it all.

The minimum wage is government mandated, of course, by either local or the federal government. I wouldn't refer to it as a "price control" however. That will confuse most of us. Just call it a 'wage mandate' if you like, then everyone will know that you are talking about mandating the minimum price of labor. 'Price control' means something quite different to most of us. For example, the wage and price freeze under Nixon. Or war time price controls, and so forth.

Naturally, a federal minimum wage can have some fractional impact on prices, depending, theoretically, on the fraction of price that is attributable to minimum wage labor. Usually this theoretical price increase is small to non-existent, but it could be substantial in a few cases. For example, what percent of a MacDonald's hamburger price is attributable to minimum wage labor? It may be a cent or two up to I suppose a few cents. Say a dime maybe. If Macdonald's is paying $8 now and the minimum legal goes up to $9 or a 12.5% increase, then to maintain their profit margin, MacDonalds would have to raise the price of the burger by 2 cents. Of course that's theory, actual practice may differ. Chances are they would bump it a nickel, and use the wage mandate to increase their profit margin, providing the competition permits. This is how we can get a modicum of inflation out of a boost in the minimum wage. On the other hand, if the increased margin filters ultimately into the economy, along with the almost certain 100% return into the economy of the 1/hr wage boost (less deductions), it is easy to see how a boost in minimum wage can result in a boost in real wages, which are wages discounted for inflation. After a real wage increase, there is more money in the pockets of low wage consumers. The economy gets a big shot in the arm. This is why it is terribly bad for an economy, false economy if you like, to let wages drop too low relative to productivity. That we have let this happen to us, I believe, is a major contributor to malaise in the U.S. economy.

When you study third world economy's you sometimes find wages egregiously below what productivity would warrant. If these nations were to bring their wages up to be more inline with productivity, they might be shocked at how their economies improve with easily manageable affect on their competitiveness.

Timely rises in the minimum wage are useful for maintaining a healthy economy. But we should also consider how desirable it is for us to continue letting the gap between the minimum wage and the true cost of minimum wage labor be made up by public sector subsidy. That is precisely what is going on every time their is a minimum wage worker living with parents, receiving food stamps, medicaid, medical insurance premium assistance, etc. Bringing the minimum up closer to productivity will reduce these public subsidies of private profits. Of course John Rockefeller might not agree, were he with us today, and probably the children of Sam Walton wouldn't agree either, but their kind of capitalism is not the kind I have in mind as being desirable for a great, modern nation.

 

[ETcallhome]

The minimum wage is government mandated, of course, by either local or the federal government. I wouldn't refer to it as a "price control" however. That will confuse most of us. Just call it a 'wage mandate' if you like, then everyone will know that you are talking about mandating the minimum price of labor. 'Price control' means something quite different to most of us. For example, the wage and price freeze under Nixon. Or war time price controls, and so forth.

Naturally, a federal minimum wage can have some fractional impact on prices, depending, theoretically, on the fraction of price that is attributable to minimum wage labor. Usually this theoretical price increase is small to non-existent, but it could be substantial in a few cases. For example, what percent of a MacDonald's hamburger price is attributable to minimum wage labor? It may be a cent or two up to I suppose a few cents. Say a dime maybe. If Macdonald's is paying $8 now and the minimum legal goes up to $9 or a 12.5% increase, then to maintain their profit margin, MacDonalds would have to raise the price of the burger by 2 cents. Of course that's theory, actual practice may differ. Chances are they would bump it a nickel, and use the wage mandate to increase their profit margin, providing the competition permits. This is how we can get a modicum of inflation out of a boost in the minimum wage. On the other hand, if the increased margin filters ultimately into the economy, along with the almost certain 100% return into the economy of the 1/hr wage boost (less deductions), it is easy to see how a boost in minimum wage can result in a boost in real wages, which are wages discounted for inflation. After a real wage increase, there is more money in the pockets of low wage consumers. The economy gets a big shot in the arm. This is why it is terribly bad for an economy, false economy if you like, to let wages drop too low relative to productivity. That we have let this happen to us, I believe, is a major contributor to malaise in the U.S. economy.

When you study third world economy's you sometimes find wages egregiously below what productivity would warrant. If these nations were to bring their wages up to be more inline with productivity, they might be shocked at how their economies improve with easily manageable affect on their competitiveness.

Timely rises in the minimum wage are useful for maintaining a healthy economy. But we should also consider how desirable it is for us to continue letting the gap between the minimum wage and the true cost of minimum wage labor be made up by public sector subsidy. That is precisely what is going on every time their is a minimum wage worker living with parents, receiving food stamps, medicaid, medical insurance premium assistance, etc. Bringing the minimum up closer to productivity will reduce these public subsidies of private profits. Of course John Rockefeller might not agree, were he with us today, and probably the children of Sam Walton wouldn't agree either, but their kind of capitalism is not the kind I have in mind as being desirable for a great, modern nation.

Peace, you are preaching to the choir, I agree. But I'd hardly call a big debate and a handout imposing a price control on labor raising it from 7.25 to 10.10 one time a "timely rise".

 

[ETcallhome]

min wage is just a band aid for a more serious injury to keep our country from deteriorating into another right wing paradise like Mexico

 

[achilles28]

Minimum wage hurts corporate profitability and consumer income, to the benefit of the lowest rung on the ladder. Prices go up, but less then the raise minimum wage earners receive. It's a better alternative to subsidizing non-work (employment benefits) for people who sit on their ass and do nothing.

Minimum wage increases don't create wealth. They simply redistribute it from Corporations/consumers to low income workers. Small increases are okay. If we raised the min wage to $10,000 an hour, we would destroy the currency. No free lunch.