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

#281

Post by fzeroracer » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #237

pwthornton wrote: post #168

How many of the people arguing for keeping the minimum wage unchanged were arguing that in good faith? In general, increasing pay into people at the bottom of the ladder has a much bigger economic effect than the opposite. Reasonable increases in the minimum wage, particularly ones that track inflation and cost of living are not going to harm the economy. As many have pointed out, the minimum wage in many places has…

> In general, increasing pay into people at the bottom of the ladder The bottom of the ladder is the unemployed, who make $0/h. The good faith argument for no minimum wage is that those people would have a much bigger chance to find jobs and build job skills.

What job skills exactly are you learning doing minimum wage jobs in 2019? That always seemed like a bit of a meme to me, considering if you've already held one minimum wage job before then you've already learned everything they have to offer practically.

This might be different if companies were interested in training employees but they aren't. So what happens with no minimum wage is that you have a class of workers who work over 40 hours a week yet have to survive off of government assistance.

The government is literally subsidizing the profits of that company at that point. So why should companies get away with being a drain on society?

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

#282

Post by adolph » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

To the degree that low value work activity cannot be outsourced to areas where the wage is more closely aligned with value, the “gig economy,” the “shadow economy ,” or firms small enough to be exempt from min wage then it will be supported by systems of cross subsidies best implemented by large corporations. The work will get done at a cost not too different from the value created. Outlawing low wage work is like outlawing drugs—it feels like the right intervention to folks who like interventions and like any barrier is only effective insofar as human ingenuity has limits.

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

#283

Post by Scapeghost » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:29 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #269

Scapeghost wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not exactly homeless, employed people not being able to afford their own house is the norm instead of the exception in the majority of the world. In the "East" and Middle East, many employed young adults live with their parents instead of moving out, even after getting married. In the UAE for example, many expats live in crammed conditions with as many as 6 people in a single room ! and sharing a single bathroo…

UAE is not a poor country. They choose to provide for native citizens, not for expatriates. That's on them. "The wealth gap between rich and poor in the UAE is one of the worst in the world, largely due to the amount of welfare and protection afforded to native Emiratis and the amount of neglect towards migrant workers." https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-the-...

You are correct and that is true.

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

#284

Post by jeremysalwen » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #280

reissbaker wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in 2009 the adjustment wasn't sufficient to bring minimum wage back to 1970 levels, adjusted for inflation. Picking the last rate change isn't a good way to measure minimum wage. In inflation-adjusted dollars, in 1970 the minimum wage was $10.66. So it is very accurate to say that the minimum wage has eroded due to inflation; currently it is $7.25, which is significantly lower. Some Democrats propose raising it…

You've cherry-picked the highest (adjusted) minimum wage over an ~80 year period. The average is closer to $8 in current dollars, which is actually below the inflation-adjusted 2009 figure of $8.70.

That's not cherry picking. (Adjusted) minimum wages are raised to their peak, and then are gradually lowered due to inflation. If you're picking a point of comparison for the proposal to raise the minimum wage to a new historical peak, it's natural to look at the last time it was raised to a new historical peak.

To look at it another way, even if the 15$ minimum wage is passed, that doesn't mean that the future minimum wage will be 15$ on average.

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

#285

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #227

monocasa wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, luckliy FDR himself discussed the concept in a speech as he signed one of the base laws to allow a federal minimum wage. > In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean…

It is worth noting that the rise of wealth in our society means that "decent living" by the standards of the 1930s means "extreme poverty" by today's standards. More precisely the real value of median income tripled from the 1930s to the 1980s. Lower income brackets did likewise. So it is historically incorrect to hear FDR say "decent living" and map it onto current notions of a decent living. Separately, we have man…

Not exactly. While you could claim that due to technological advances a person working a low skilled job at full time in 2019 is better off than someone doing an equivalent job in 1980, you fail to take into account that in 2019 that person would be by major guidelines in a much worse position, ie, no hope of owning a house, taking public transit, can't support a family in a city, less likely to be in a supportive union, and so on. In the things that matter, the person in 2019 is worse off. And at the same time, a worker in 2019 has wildly increased productivity compared to one in 1980. So in a sense, purely by the standard of what they produce, they make more but has less baseline property and amenities. This is an issue. It's no coincidence that rich people have proportionally gotten much much richer in these 40 years, and it has 100% come at a cost to the majority.

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

#286

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #278

Ericson2314 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you measure it in calories or other form of nutrition, did it triple? If you define poverty not by an absolute standard of living but the poverty trap (the range where the rest of society trivially exploits you, intentionally or not, and you cannot advance as they do), does it triple?

In what way are the poor exploited?

They possess essentially no power in labour negotiations, and most of them live under the yoke of debt.

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

#287

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #127

hinkley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm cynical. I think it's frankly worse than that. When we talk about economic and market forces, we don't talk about "greed" as a major economic force. We know it's the creation of capitalism, but economists seem to do everything in their power to ignore it. Standard economic models breaks down when people are powerful enough to create their own supply/demand curves. We've had the term "working poor" for a while. I…

I strongly suspect that greed is much older than capitalism.

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

#288

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #287

bb88 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm cynical. I think it's frankly worse than that. When we talk about economic and market forces, we don't talk about "greed" as a major economic force. We know it's the creation of capitalism, but economists seem to do everything in their power to ignore it. Standard economic models breaks down when people are powerful enough to create their own supply/demand curves. We've had the term "working poor" for a while. I…

I strongly suspect that greed is much older than capitalism.

Capitalism is literally allowing greed to run wild and almost completely unchecked. It's the driving force behind greed being such a force in 2019.

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

#289

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #260

klipklop wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The working homeless already exist Los Angeles/California. There are more than a few employed people, with kids, living in their cars. https://www.kqed.org/news/11690325/thousands-of-californians... https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-economicall...

But that's LA/California right? Thousands is not millions, and California is not the US.

Working poor != working homeless

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

#290

Post by ChrisLomont » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:50 AM UTC

jeremysalwen wrote: post #284

marcusverus wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've cherry-picked the highest (adjusted) minimum wage over an ~80 year period. The average is closer to $8 in current dollars, which is actually below the inflation-adjusted 2009 figure of $8.70.

That's not cherry picking. (Adjusted) minimum wages are raised to their peak, and then are gradually lowered due to inflation. If you're picking a point of comparison for the proposal to raise the minimum wage to a new historical peak, it's natural to look at the last time it was raised to a new historical peak. To look at it another way, even if the 15$ minimum wage is passed, that doesn't mean that the future minim…

>That's not cherry picking.

Picking the highest of the highs over 80 years is the definition of cherry picking. Why not simply pick the average over time? Or any other peak if you desire peaks?

Picking 1970, before many women entered the workforce and competition was more global, is likely not a good value to pick. It's probably better to let states, which have vastly different costs of living, set state or local wages to account for those disparities. Forcing a mom and pop in the middle of nowhere to pay what a worker in NY or SF gets by law will hurt many.