Live data from Hacker News

What harm do minimum wages do?

economist.com

281–290 of 776 posts

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#281
"The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.

The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization.

It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers. Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute. Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way.

When such consequences are pointed out, there are those who reply: “Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether.” But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment."

[...]

"As to the prices, wages and profits that should determine the distribution of that product, the best prices are not the highest prices, but the prices that encourage the largest volume of production and the largest volume of sales. The best wage rates for labor are not the highest wage rates, but the wage rates that permit full production, full employment and the largest sustained payrolls. The best profits, from the standpoint not only of industry but of labor, are not the lowest profits, but the profits that encourage most people to become employers or to provide more employment than before."

Henry Hazlitt “Economics in One Lesson.”

To those who are downvoting: There are no illegal people, there is no illegal two-party consensual trade.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent said "no one is entitled to anything". I take that to mean "neither capital nor labor is entitled to a return". It's probably also useful to scope this conversation to a certain context: "in a free market, no one is entitled to anything". This is a sort of hypothetical scenario since there are no perfectly free markets, and a completely unregulated market is very likely not a desirable thing (evolutionary…

They didn't explicitly say that capital is entitled to a return, but the comment pretty clearly indicated an asymmetry between capital and labor. You could invert the wording to the following > You aren't de facto entitled to receiving a return on any capital you may provide, regardless of whether that capital is put to productive use or not. A company exists because one or more people provided their labor in order t…

Via "no one is entitled to anything", the parent explicitly said that capital is not entitled to a return. No need to read between the lines here. We can all agree that no one is entitled to anything in a free market and move on to the next question, which is probably something like "to what extent does a perfectly free market deliver on our collective objectives"? I.e., "Can we balance market freedom with some amount of regulation to deliver a system that is both prosperous and stable/sustainable/equitable/etc?".

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#283
post #4

> Textbooks state that, in the absence of a minimum wage, a worker is paid his “marginal product of labour”, which means the value of what he produces. > Just as a monopolist can set prices higher than would be the case in a competitive market, a monopsonist can set prices artificially lower. A lot of economic arguments forget these ideas. The labor market is not a free market: companies have more power in negotiatio…

> The labor market is not a free market

If it is as you say the employer has all the power, then nobody would have a job at more than minimum wage.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#284

Minimum wage , despite all manner of contortion by those that seek to justify its existence, is a political concept. The minimum wage is, always, zero. Minimum wage is also what drives the market for illegal immigrant labor. As Milton Friedman pointed out decades ago, immigration is most beneficial to employers precisely when it's illegal. Those workers don't enjoy the protections, wagers, and respect their legal cou…

I'm not sure how your first three paragraphs support the fourth. Illegal immigration drives down wages so we shouldn't have a minimum wage?

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#285
The richest person in Australia seriously floated an idea to import foreign workers and pay them $2 a day to work in her mines

I've always looked at minimum wage as an employer saying "I'd pay you less if I legally could". In workplace negotiations all of the power is held by the employer, unless you have some form of collective bargaining, and having a Government mandated minimum prevents companies from totally exploiting low paid workers.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm generally in favor of state-level control of such things, but i'd be remiss not to point out that that's a great way to further entrench inequality across america. i mean, if $15/hour is a little more than subsistence level in rural north dakota or the hills of west virginia, so be it. maybe it means they can buy a laptop for the kids, but it won't be mansions and teslas everywhere. current labor markets are prof…

It's one thing to be unfair when the government is footing the bill, like basic income or tax brackets. It's a good incentive to balance out rising cost of living. It's another when it's small businesses footing the bill. There's a very painful lag time between being required to pay employees more and when employees have more spending power. Typically all that happens is local business don't have the finances to cove…

small businesses don't foot the bill, at least not to any painful level if they're anything approaching a reasonably run business. their customers might, and having it be a blanket policy means that small businesses are not disadvantaged or penalized for not having the leverage of big businesses to distribute costs onto the rest of society (e.g., walmart and welfare).

at most, on the margin, a small business might give employees 1-2 fewer hours per week. that actually puts selective pressure on small businesses to be more efficient, and therefore more competitive with big business.

this also counters the other oft-cited rebuttal that people will lose jobs due to the minimum wage - no, they may lose an hour or two on the margin, but whole swaths of jobs aren't at stake, and their take-home will likely stay roughly the same even with fewer hours per week.

economic lag isn't particularly relevant either, because folks making minimum wage turn around immediately and spend that money. there's virtually no lag there.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#287
The anti-min-wage / free market argument ignores a key fact: as a society we have decided we won't let people starve to death. So, if someone can't make ends meet, we will (via taxes) support them, at least to some extent.

This support factors into the wage negotiation, allowing the employer to force a lower wage (absent a state imposed min). Absent state sate welfare style support many low wage (min and sub-min) jobs would simply not work, people could not feed themselves, and they would not accept the jobs.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#288
Is the goal for people to receive a certain amount of money? There are many approaches to this.

Is the goal for companies to pay some people (specifically, those employed) a certain amount of money? There are fewer approaches to this.

Is the goal to shift the distribution of revenue in a company? There are fewer approaches to this. A minimum wage is a poor one.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#289

Minimum wage , despite all manner of contortion by those that seek to justify its existence, is a political concept. The minimum wage is, always, zero. Minimum wage is also what drives the market for illegal immigrant labor. As Milton Friedman pointed out decades ago, immigration is most beneficial to employers precisely when it's illegal. Those workers don't enjoy the protections, wagers, and respect their legal cou…

I'm not sure how your first three paragraphs support the fourth. Illegal immigration drives down wages so we shouldn't have a minimum wage?

Illegal immigration is a side effect of minimum wage. And minimum wage puts unskilled Americans (or Americans whose skills aren't valuable because of a changing market) at an unfair disadvantage in their attempts to obtain employment and acquire new skills.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in my post.

Re: What harm do minimum wages do?

#290
post #4

> Textbooks state that, in the absence of a minimum wage, a worker is paid his “marginal product of labour”, which means the value of what he produces. > Just as a monopolist can set prices higher than would be the case in a competitive market, a monopsonist can set prices artificially lower. A lot of economic arguments forget these ideas. The labor market is not a free market: companies have more power in negotiatio…

> companies have more power in negotiation, they have more information You're just asserting this without any argument or evidence. > and, most important of all, they can deal with a job opening not being covered most of the time. Workers can't usually live too much without finding a job. Workers don't specifically need a job at that company. Even if they need a job, they can go work somewhere else. And if that isn't…

> You're just asserting this without any argument or evidence.

I don't think it's a controversial statement at all. Even then, my argument was just in the next sentence.

> Workers don't specifically need a job at that company.

Nor companies specifically need a job filled by a given worker. It's a statement about general needs. If a company finds no satisfying candidates, they can deal with leaving that post open. If a worker doesn't find a satisfying job, they will still take something because they need to eat.

> Even if they need a job, they can go work somewhere else.

Doesn't make a difference if "somewhere else" offers the same low wages. Which is what happens, because most companies have the same incentives and the same lack of limits to push wages below livable levels.

> Even if you want to do this, it still makes minimum wage a ridiculous policy, because it harms the same workers it's purporting to help

The OP linked article shows that there's no clear evidence on whether minimum wages destroy employment or not.

> When there are policies that do only one and not the other (e.g. UBI)

Of course UBI or UGI policies would be far better, and would remove the need for a minimum wage. However, they work in the same direction: give more power to workers to offset the power of negotiation that business have. And, being pragmatic, a minimum wage increase is far more likely to be accepted, at least in the short term, than UBI.

Post reply on HN