Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true • Hacker News Board

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#131

Post by heylook » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #118

mullingitover wrote: post #9

Minimum wage isn't just flat for a decade, it's not being adjusted for inflation. This means minimum wage workers have been getting a pay cut over time. The debate isn't just whether we should raise minimum wage, it's whether we should be cutting it. By allowing it to remain stagnant we're making the default decision to cut.

> This means minimum wage workers have been getting a pay cut over time. This here is the strawman of the argument. Very few employed continuously for ten years continue to make minimum wage / don't move on to better jobs.

No, you are making the straw man argument. The argument is not that the exact same people have been holding the exact same jobs with exactly the same pay the whole time. There's a reason you found it so simple to lampoon. That reason is you chose to view the argument as naively as possible.

The argument is that any minimum wage earner is worse off than a minimum wage earner the year prior, and the year prior, and the year prior, etc. By holding the minimum wage fixed, we are making the default decision that a minimum wage earner tomorrow should have less effective purchasing power than a minimum wage earner today.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#132

Post by cheriot » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #118

mullingitover wrote: post #9

Minimum wage isn't just flat for a decade, it's not being adjusted for inflation. This means minimum wage workers have been getting a pay cut over time. The debate isn't just whether we should raise minimum wage, it's whether we should be cutting it. By allowing it to remain stagnant we're making the default decision to cut.

> This means minimum wage workers have been getting a pay cut over time. This here is the strawman of the argument. Very few employed continuously for ten years continue to make minimum wage / don't move on to better jobs.

There's always a segment of society trying to make ends meet on minimum wage. It doesn't matter how long one person is doing it.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#133

Post by cheriot » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #116

One reason could be because almost nobody makes minimum wage. In 2017 just over 2% of workers made the minimum wage. When you only look at full time employees, it's less than 1%. When you include only people over 25 it's even less. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm It's interesting how few people know this. When you ask people to guess what percent of people make the minimum wage, you'll lik…

Minimum wage affects the pay of people earning close to it. When a business decides it can make more money by hiring better workers, they have to pay more than the competition.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#134

Post by nemo44x » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

d357r0y3r wrote: post #70

FabHK wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not a straw man. Austerity has very much been promoted as a cure; it was not an inevitable consequence of the economic situation. The debate is maybe best exemplified by the debate between Krugman ("against austerity") and Reinhart/Rogoff ("pro austerity"). > Nobel laureate Paul Krugman refused to back down in a dispute with Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff over a 2010 paper t…

Krugman doesn't believe that there's any problem with unlimited debt, so of course, he's not going to want austerity. Why would you make sacrifices when you get everything you want, today, for free? There are consequences for overspending and overborrowing. We don't have a way to paper over that. You can pay today or you can tomorrow with interest.

> You can pay today or you can tomorrow with interest.

You can pay today or you can have the next generation pay for it tomorrow with interest.

This is what we are seeing right now. Previous generations lived on public debt and funded their infrastructure, their services, and their retirements and pensions with debt which has to be paid out of current tax payers revenues. This has left us in a situation where so much tax money is being used to pay back debt in the form of bonds, pensions, etc. This has seen a reduction in school quality, in infrastructure maintenance, public services, etc because the money isn't there to pay for these things.

And then I see young people today cheering for Warren's plan to increase benefits for the elderly, unaware that this comes out of their pocket. That this will take away their services and their infrastructure and their future.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#135

Post by drjesusphd » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #116

One reason could be because almost nobody makes minimum wage. In 2017 just over 2% of workers made the minimum wage. When you only look at full time employees, it's less than 1%. When you include only people over 25 it's even less. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm It's interesting how few people know this. When you ask people to guess what percent of people make the minimum wage, you'll lik…

One can read that as "The minimum wage isn't doing its job anymore and needs to be increased."

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#136

Post by lazyasciiart » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

pg_bot wrote: post #56

You might not lose your job, but you may see your hours reduced or you might not get the opportunity in the first place. Technically the employment numbers don't change, but you shouldn't think of of minimum wage employees like salaried employees. Minimum wage earners can lose fractional percentages of their jobs unlike salaried employees. Most proponents of raising the minimum wage cite the Card & Krueger paper whic…

> you force them to have a wage of zero

This is false, and it is misusing the language to make your point stronger. A wage is what you get in return for working. A wage of 0 is work with no payment. Minimum wage does not allow that.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#137

Post by sachdevap » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #60

mullingitover wrote: post #9

Minimum wage isn't just flat for a decade, it's not being adjusted for inflation. This means minimum wage workers have been getting a pay cut over time. The debate isn't just whether we should raise minimum wage, it's whether we should be cutting it. By allowing it to remain stagnant we're making the default decision to cut.

I'm old enough to remember this conversation happening three times, and wise enough to know that this conversation happens every ten years or so probably since the first wage was paid in currency instead of goods. A certain pay rate creates supply. Conditions make it hard to switch jobs. And every year you ever so slowly reduce the effective pay to those employees and they slowly give up little luxuries to make ends…

Let me rephrase that last sentence for what you are meaning it as "If you call this class warfare instead of unintended consequences, in my opinion, you are being paranoid or cynical."

Neither "paranoid" nor "cynical" are absolute terms to base your argument on.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#138

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #123

clairity wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "> Cities like New York, Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco have raised local minimum wages" > "> Laws in New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey will eventually increase minimum wages to $15 per hour." > "I don't find this reasoning very convincing." those are fact statements--what's to argue? > "That's the basic problem with a federal minimum wage." whether a federal m…

He's not arguing with Axios facts. He's saying the fact that Illinois is gradually ramping to a $15 statewide minimum is not evidence that a $15 minimum is nationally appropriate, because the economy of Illinois is not the same as the economy of Kansas or Wyoming. It also obviously factual that the prevailing lowest livable wage in NYC is higher than that of Des Moines; NYC's statutory minimum should be higher than D…

>He's saying the fact that Illinois is gradually ramping to a $15 statewide minimum is not evidence that a $15 minimum is nationally appropriate, because the economy of Illinois is not the same as the economy of Kansas or Wyoming.

Plus, its not even $15 dollars yet. It's $8.25 right now. You can't even get illegal immigrants to work for that under the table in rural Illinois.

But I have doubts whether the entire state economy can handle $15 dollars. A lot of Illinois is poorer than Des Moines.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#139

Post by UnFleshedOne » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #23

Pigo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read reports of Target, and similar companies, cutting back hours of many employees. I take such reports as anecdotal, but I didn't catch them talking about this in the article at all.

I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they're avoiding paying benefits for the hiring of fewer full time workers. The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation.

Ironically, consolidating the same amount of hours in fewer employees suffers the same effects people say raising minimum wage does -- reducing the total number of people involved. Some people get more hours and benefits, others get fired.

Re: Job loss predictions over rising minimum wages haven't come true

#140

Post by TheOperator » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #125

xinsight wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is difficult, then it's not a very good business. Serious question: Why would you want to run a business that can only survive by paying people poverty wages?

This is a very naive view of economics. Ideally everyone's income should be derived from the value they generate. So ideally wages continue to rise because productivity continues to rise. But there are many cases where it make more sense to pay 4 low skilled workers to do a job instead of paying the costs of automation plus the cost of the higher skilled worker to use the automated solution. It's why so many jobs in…

Generally I'm keen to believe the externalities of automation are not being passed onto its users. I.E. creating efficiency by taking away people's source of income & turning them into a tax burden.

With the minimum wage I suspect a similar effect. The effects increasing wages have on employers red ink doesn't wholly comprehend the positive effect more money in people's pockets has on black ink & overall productivity. A well invested grand in the hands of the poor is DRAMATICALLY more impactful than in a well invested grand in the hands of the rich due to diminishing returns. A company making a new product can deliver more value for society making some wonderful new invention the poor and middle class can spend their income on rather than some out of reach luxury good.

This logic by the way underpins the very unpopular around these parts notion of affirmative action.