Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.

[piezoe]

We don't need history. It been rewritten, anyway.
We can just look at the present. It's harder to make up facts about that. 15 bucks an hour in California and the people promoting it want an exemption or they'll have to lay off people.

California Labor Union That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage ...
dailysignal.com/.../california-labor-union-that-fought-for-15-minimum-...
Sep 30, 2015 - The labor union that led the charge for a $15 minimum wage hike in cities ... That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage Now Wants an Exemption.

LA union wants to be exempt from $15 minimum wage
www.cnbc.com/.../la-union-wants-to-be-exempt-from-15-minimu...CNBC
Jul 30, 2015 - An LA union wants to be exempt from the $15 minimum wage it supports. ... planning professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

I think when you stated that nobody knows the true cost of labor, you really meant the value of labor. The cost of labor is already known. It's the value we're arguing over. And your statement that we can be sure it's above 7 bucks an hour is just opinion. Yours against millions of others who say differently. And unlike you, those others are actually putting their money behind their opinion.

You hope that businesses like Walmart go under? That's 1.4 million workers for that company alone. Putting that many people out of work will give a shot to the economy alright. A shot to the head.



edit:
As long as you're concerned about getting the cost of labor in line with the value of labor, why is it that I haven't seen any posts by you critiquing union labor costs, both public and private, as it relates to the value they provide?
We've seen companies out the wazoo go belly up with gigantic union pension costs that can't be paid. And Chicago and other cities are on the precipice right now with huge public union costs How is it that you're not agitating to lower the cost of labor to unions? It would give the economy a big shot in the arm ya know.

The true cost of minimum wage labor is the cost of housing, clothing, feeding, insuring, transporting and providing dental and medical care for a minimum wage laborer. It can be computed in various ways, so it is somewhat a matter of opinion regarding the best way to compute it. One method involves taking the minimum wage and adding to it all the marginal subsidies such as food stamps, medicaid, and any other subsidies necessary for the minimum wage worker to show up on the job rested, clean, healthy and well fed. That's a method that tends to underestimate the true cost. Regardless of what formula you use you will arrive at a number well North of 7.25/hr.

When the net cost to the employer, which includes wages plus any employer provided subsidies, is below the true cost, distortions in the economy result. These distortions manifest themselves in the form of hidden cost shifting. It wouldn't be entirely wrong to describe the intentional ignoring, or sweeping under the rug, of these distortions as a form of economic subterfuge. Regardless, this type of distortion is undesirable in a mixed economy such as that of the U.S.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

So you want to make it impossible for low cost states to compete? Maybe we need federal minimum prices for all goods and services as well. We could just have our wise masters in the government set the prices for labor and goods and services. After all, they are far more intelligent than local businessmen just trying to make a buck.

 

[fhl]

The true cost of minimum wage labor is the cost of housing, clothing, feeding, insuring, transporting and providing dental and medical care for a minimum wage laborer. It can be computed in various ways, so it is somewhat a matter of opinion regarding the best way to compute it. One method involves taking the minimum wage and adding to it all the marginal subsidies such as food stamps, medicaid, and any other subsidies necessary for the minimum wage worker to show up on the job rested, clean, healthy and well fed. That's a method that tends to underestimate the true cost. Regardless of what formula you use you will arrive at a number well North of 7.25/hr.

There you go again. You think the cost of labor is how much he needs for his house, etc. You don't think it has anything to do with the value the employee brings to the business. It's not anywhere in your computation. Straight from the Bernie Sanders economic book. That he got from the USSR. Which imploded into dust using this brand of economics.

 

[Ricter]

than local businessmen just trying to make a buck

Why qualify this with "local"?

 

[fhl]

Here's an old used truck for sale:

Maybe all the owner kind find is people who are willing to pay maybe 5,000 for it.
Until he runs into piezo. All he has to do is tell piezo that he has a really large mortgage payment and a lot of medical bills and piezo will be willing to pay 15,000 for the truck. It's 'true cost'.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The true cost of minimum wage labor is the cost of housing, clothing, feeding, insuring, transporting and providing dental and medical care for a minimum wage laborer.

FHL points out above how utterly ridiculous this is. The True Cost of a wage is what that wage is determined to be in the free market. Like anything else, as supply increases (of labor), demand falls and labor is cheaper.

Housing, food, etc, all have their own market forces balancing out the costs of them. If people cannot afford to live in San Francisco because minimum wage doesn't cover housing, food, etc, then they need to move to San Antonio where it does. Eventually, businesses paying minimum wage in San Fran won't be able to find labor and will have to raise the price of the wage.

Unless, of course, you don't want the free market to set labor and wage prices. But that wouldn't be you, right? I mean, you're a Libertarian!

hah...

 

[Ricter]

The true price of baby formula could be determined by the free market, but "our wise masters" in government have put an artificial floor under it with their inspection and safety regulations.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The true price of baby formula could be determined by the free market, but "our wise masters" in government have put an artificial floor under it with their inspection and safety regulations.

Adding costs through regulation that have to be recouped in pricing is an example of something not a free market would do. However, baby formula companies would keep the same quality and safety levels without government, because if they did not, they would be subject to the legal system and vast lawsuits. Additionally, they would lose business to companies with higher quality product - as their consumer insights groups would indicate in advance. All of this is free market.

The government adding costs in does not mean that these costs are part of the true cost of the product. They are overlays.

 

[piezoe]

There you go again. You think the cost of labor is how much he needs for his house, etc. You don't think it has anything to do with the value the employee brings to the business. It's not anywhere in your computation. Straight from the Bernie Sanders economic book. That he got from the USSR. Which imploded into dust using this brand of economics.

That right, by definition it has nothing to do with value, which I don't think you defined in any case. Please understand that all of the costs that go into computing the true cost of labor are all minimum costs. And setting these minimums is somewhat a matter of opinion, but not as much as you might think.

 

[Ricter]

Adding costs through regulation that have to be recouped in pricing is an example of something not a free market would do. However, baby formula companies would keep the same quality and safety levels without government, because if they did not, they would be subject to the legal system and vast lawsuits.

If they think they're going to get caught, or aren't in it for a quick buck.

Ok, the minimum wage is an overlay. I can live with it. In fact, the US has had a minimum wage my whole life.