|
Sheep may safely graze? Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Yers at work Lender gambled trust...literally Winning MEGA Millions ticket still unclaimed, Lotto says Bringing business to Kern ... How low will prices go? Check out our latest home sales map Housing: What you're paying, right now People in Business: A who's who for Aug. 29 58 homes! Check out our home sales map People in Business: A who's who for Aug. 22 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 Contact us with your news and information: Team leader: Christine Peterson, cpeterson@bakersfield.com, 395-7418 Assistant team leader: John Cox, jcox@bakersfield.com, 395- 7345 Reporters: Courtenay Edelhart, cedelhart@bakersfield.com, 395-7372 Jenny Shearer, jshearer@bakersfield.com, 395-7234 Gretchen Wenner, gwenner@bakersfield.com, 395-7368
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Marylee Shrider: Minimum wage hike hurts business
The $8 minimum wage has profound impacts on business, columnist Marylee Shrider writes this week. She's seeing it in higher prices on menus around town. And the business owners and managers she talked with say it's making them adjust hours down and hold off on hiring. So was the $8 minimum wage a good move? — Christine Peterson 97 comments from 26 users
posted by
tonyh
on Feb 29, 2008 at 09:01 PM
You seem to have plenty of time to profess the stupidity of all who disagree with you. I figured you'd also have plenty of time to humor me here. posted by
tonyh
on Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15 PM
Tom, does YOUR version of self employment require a business license? How many employees (besides yourself ) does your business have? posted by
TomW
on Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46 PM
Tony, I wasn't here all day. Second, sorry if you feel like you felt like I was picking on you. I get tired of people who collect a couple of anecdotes and try to pretend it's data. As for the rest of it, let's just skip all the details where I answer your questions and you talk about how much more experience you have or how your little brush with experience is so much more relevant than the experience I have and get to the end of your drama show and you can just storm off now because no one understands just how much in depth unchallengable knowledge of the subject matter you and only you possess. posted by
TomW
on Feb 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM
posted by
mattloch
on Feb 29, 2008 at 11:56 PM
I guess gas is headed to $4 a gallon because of the minimum-wage hike. And prices on corn, wheat, and other crops are skyrocketing for the same reason (people earning minimum wage harvest those crops, right?). And health care costs are out of control for the same reason (because doctors earn minimum wage too, right?). posted by
tonyh
on Mar 1, 2008 at 07:05 AM
The only way to offset wage increase is to also increase productivity. Of courst gasoling prices heading to $4 a gallon isn't wage related, I'll take a chance and say that we all agree on that. U.S. factory produced goods will go up. Services will go up a lot. The deal is that when minimum wage is increased, all pay and wages go up too. Yes, the saleries of the people who work for the HPO or PPO will go up and the salery of your Doctor will go up too. It pushes the cost of everything up, so where's the benefit to the minimum wage earner (if there are any who aren't teenagers living with Mom & Dad)? Before Tom decided to roll over and play dead, I was trying to show him what I ain't seeing. I'm not seeing this described population of Americans trying to raise and support a family on minimum wage. I'm not. Around where I live, even the local High School Football players who work as day labor in the Summer make at least a dollar more than minimum wage. The adult day laborers tend to make at least a couple of bucks more than that. I used this as an example because it's the lowest paying job that I could ask around about on short notice. The local McDonald's pays minimum wage for the first 90 days of employment. Then, you either get a pay raise, of fired for being a no load. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 1, 2008 at 07:34 AM
Every time this topic comes up people deny the price of goods goes up when minimum wages go up, or any wage goes up. I'm always amazed that some believe that it doesn't happen. It might not be as noticible with large companies but with mom and pops for instance, if they have to pay that teenager more money they WILL increase the price of their goods. Probably not by a large amount, but it will increase. For those who don't increase their prices, they will cut back on hours. But somewhere, somehow, they will pass the cost of that wage increase on to the consumer When the county was forced to raise pay recently, they immediately began to cut programs, training, consolidated teams, and put a lid on hiring. When jobs were vacated they weren't always filled again. And that benefits potential workers in what way? In the early 60's we were paying 25 cents for a loaf of bread and my ex was making $50 a week. You could buy a new Volkswagon for $1200. What do we pay now? Do you believe that those increases didn't go hand in hand? How naive can people be to think that companies are going to just absorb higher wages and take it out of their bottom line? posted by
sfinboston52
on Mar 1, 2008 at 08:48 AM
I support an honest wage for a honest day's work. Employers must pay their employees a livable wage! posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 1, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Tony, it's easily found on the Internet. "Rep" is short for "repertory." . The increase in the minimum wage is a good thing. And MaryLee wants to pretend the increase in prices we've seen have nothing to do with increased costs for fuel, corn, wheat, etc? posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Price inflation has lots of causes including fuel costs, material costs, the falling dollar. Do you think prices woud be lower today if we cut the minimum wage? To address the issue of who makes the minimum wage, about a quarter of the people who make minimum wage are teenagers and over 50% are over 25. Further, studies show that increasing the minimum wage actually increase employment across the economy because forcing money to the bottom of the economy whick increases churn. In a macro sense, the economy is hlped by passing money through as many hands as possibe before it returns to the government where it was made. Tony, your question about anyone here knowing anyone raising someone raising a family on the minimum wage is silly. I don't know anyone who lives in Alabama, but I also know that people actually live there. posted by
sagefever
on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Tony~ I was paid for 20 hours a week by the agency of Adult Protective Services as a in home health care aid. My son Kelsey took 24/7 care,he could not sit,stand,crawl,walk,grasp or articulate~ in short he needed help to do virtually everything. I was a single parent,no child support,he received $500 or so a month SSI,and I was really lucky as my mother had bought a house. On that income I saved for my property taxes,paid my utilities,we ate, and that was about it. I can make a buck go far,but after 15 years of living that close to the bone,as it were,I can tell you optimism is hard to dig up. posted by
mattloch
on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Tony, people who raise a family on minimum wage typically can't afford computers and internet access. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:56 AM
No one addreessed the part about rising wages eating into the bottom line of a business. Who is going to absorb that? Or did I miss that part? posted by
hotandfoggy
on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Sage, You wrote exactly what I was thinking about Taco Bell's new 79 cent menu. The bean and cheese burritos did increase about seven cents, but that is not going to stop me from going thru the drive thru when I am in a hurry. posted by
robbwillis
on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM
People who raise a family on minimum wage typically can't afford computers and internet access. Which makes it a shame they won't read this: If your making minimum wage, now is not the time to raise a family. posted by
adampayne
on Mar 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The facts argue that increased productivity has not increased wages at all. Here is a snap shot from the Economic Policy Institute. I guess my earlier link that showed the minimum wage depreciating against the overall economy since 1981didn't make much impact on people who think raising the bottom wages hurts the economy and businesses employing these workers.
posted by
NancyII
on Mar 1, 2008 at 01:01 PM
With all due respect to the charts and graphs let me dumb this down a bit. I own a small mom and pop grocery store where I employ 2 people part time. Bear in mind that these stores aren't big profit business. If the gov't comes along and tells me that I must pay each of these employees an extra dollar per hour, also bearing in mind that my overhead has not gone down, nor has my business increased, are you saying that my economy is going to be benefitted by this? Or are you saying that I must take more money out of my pocket to pay for this extra cost in wages paid? You do realize that I will have less money (profit) to support my own family don't you? When that happens I can do one of two things..maybe both. I can cut the hours of my employees or I can raise the price of goods to my customers. Sales - overhead = profit. Increase overhead and profit decreases. I'm sorry, I'm not an economist or a deep thinker here but in my simple math a minus is a minus and all the charts and graphs won't change that. posted by
FreeCognate
on Mar 1, 2008 at 01:04 PM
If your making minimum wage, now is not the time to raise a family. yup. It seems to me that the best thing that people working minimum wage can do to improve their station is not to rely upon the government to increase minimum wage but rather to take advantage of training and educational opportunities that improve their ability to attain higher paying work. In Kern, we have an extremely inexpensive community college that offers classes all day and in the evenings in addition to the multiple online programs. Federal school loans are available to just about anyone; low percentage rates and repayment doesn't typically start until a year after the classes are completed. Learn a trade, get a degree, and move into a position that requires specialized knowledge and compensates accordingly. Ironically, the move toward increased education would likely cause an increase in lower wages anyway. Wages are largely based upon supply and demand - if Walmart or Taco Bell or wherever offers minimum wage with no benefits, it's b/c they know that they have a huge unskilled workforce willing to work for that paltry amount. If less workers were interested in working at those places, then these companies would have a smaller labor pool to draw their workers from, forcing them to improve their compensation to attract from the limited availability of talent. posted by
sagefever
on Mar 1, 2008 at 01:46 PM
If your making minimum wage, now is not the time to raise a family. True,but to raise a point,when we began our family were self employed. After our son was born the economic stress,the stress of having a child like mine ended the marriage. At the time child care was impossible to find,much less afford to attend any type of school or training program.Not to mention time:our day was none stop,from food,to therapy to helping in school..to the 3am check to see if all is well. Finding an employer so understanding to that, would have been a neat trick..what I am saying I suppose is that not all minimum wage earners start out like that,not all of them can pull themselves up so easily.How being dirt poor drags one down is very hard to understand unless one has been there. posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 01:49 PM
For Robb and FreeCognate, say you have a family, lose your job and you take a minimum wage job to keep some money coming in. Is that also not the time to raise a family? BTW, FreeCognate, you're dangerously close in that last bit to advocating that they die and decrease the surplus population. posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Nancy, let's take the supermarket example. Now you have a market in a town where everyone is making slightly more money. Maybe they come in and buy a few of your higher margin goods or some extra beer or soda or cookies. You're right that the immediate impact of the new wage may sting. A buck an hour per full time employee for 2 employees will end up costing the employer about 500 dollars a month. You might raise your prices a bit and cut out some of the people who would otherwise have bought more; you can cut employee hours and save a bit in the short term and either make it up by doing more work yourself or let the service and/or cleanliness of the store slide decreasing the value of your product; or you can bite the bullet for a month or two while that money works it's way through the economy and boosts business. posted by
robbwillis
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:03 PM
I'm all for helping out a family that has fallen on hard times. But for "John" and "Mary" that are working for minimum wage and are thinking about reproducing, if they are thinking at all while they're making whoopie like crazed weasels: now is not the time to raise a family. In the Willis Utopia, there would be no reproducing without a license which would be handed out after the completion of Parenting 101. A prerequisite would be proof that your child would not have to live on a parent's minimum wage. Hope that clears things up. posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:03 PM
posted by
sagefever
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Thank you Tom,for the back up. I agree Robb about the concept,but I must point out I could have taken your class,passed and still found myself at exactly the same place. posted by
robbwillis
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:51 PM
You could have merely shown your diploma and the Willis administration would have seen to it you were taken care of. Tough luck for the crazed weasel family, though. posted by
FreeCognate
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Sage, I don't know the circumstances of your past and I can't possibly comment on your life. I do know what it's like to grow up dirt poor and I have also been literally dirt poor as an adult. And I know that working a minimum wage job drains the life from a person as much as living in poverty. Minimum wage jobs involve repetition, manual labor, little intellectual stimulus and little compensation, whether they pay $7 b/c that is the minimum wage or $8. The government's increase of the minimum wage doesn't change the essential problem, which is too many people believe that they can have good lives working for the minimum wage b/c the government will keep employers honest. I am not against programs that are designed to help families and others who have fallen on hard times. Safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps are very important for helping families and individuals get through the roughest periods of their lives. I also think that the government can provide "traps" or "openings." The traps are actions like increasing minimum wage, which makes minimum wage jobs appear more attractive. We have kids dropping out of school in Kern County b/c they think that a minimum wage job will be sufficient to support themselves and their families into the future. The openings are things like government supported job-training programs and opportunities for school loans that help an individual develop skills to improve their job options. I think that those actions by the government are far more effective at helping people to improve their lives for the long term, which I think should be the goal of this discussion. Tomw: I think that sometimes folks do fall into hard times b/c of circumstances out of their control. Hence my answer above. If you honestly think that I would advocate death to decrease the surplus population, then I don't know what to say. Do you want to have a rational discussion or do you want to demagogue me and anyone else that disagrees with you? posted by
sagefever
on Mar 1, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Good one~ the crazed weasel families do need to figure out why and how babies keep happening,and the benefits of proper birth control. posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 03:31 PM
FreeCognate, I'll give you a pass on the demagoguing if you let me do it to everyone else. As for the dropout rate, that argument has been used and disproven for the last 20 years: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/lwl... Do Minimum Wages Reduce Educational Attainment? Economic theory predicts that the effect of minimum wages on school enrollment is ambiguous.(19) That is, a higher minimum wage makes employment more attractive and school less attractive, causing some teens to seek employment and/or drop out of school. A number of empirical studies have advanced the literature by examining the effects of minimum wages on the school enrollment status of teenagers.(20) Minimum wage opponents contend that it decreases teen employment and prompts at-risk teens to drop out of school. For example, Neumark and Wascher's estimates suggest that President Clinton's proposed minimum wage hike would lower school enrollment by 2.8 percentage points. However, their study used an inaccurate measure of school enrollment, misclassifying some students as nonstudents. As a result, Neumark and Wascher overestimated the adverse effects minimum wages have on school enrollment.(21) Evans and Turner (1995), using an accurate measure of school enrollment but otherwise identical specifications, found that the minimum wage does not affect school enrollment. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 1, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Tom, I can see where you're going with your explanation but it doesn't always work that way. In small businesses the extra few dollare the employees make probably isn't going to find it's way into your store. As for people on minimum wages having children, that's just ignorance gone to seed. If a couple is struggling with both making min. wage for instance, what makes them think they can afford a child? My first job was in the students store at BHS for less than min wage and my second was in my boyfriends aunts dress shop where I never made more than min. wage. The jobs I had in feed and beverage service were all min. wage and I depended on tips to live. I had no problem with that as I had the potential to make a lot more depending on my service. I considered myself self employed during those years. I sort of felt like people who availed themselves of the service appreciated it and the ones who did not avail themselves of the service, didn't subsidize my pay. posted by
TomW
on Mar 1, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Nancy, I agree that it doesn't always work that way. Certainly you wouldn't think that your own employee's would spend their additional money in their own store. As I mentioned earlier, minimum wage raises have discernable effects on the wages of the lowest 50% of wage earners. Overall, small businesses will do better and more sma businesses can start when the money in the system is more spread out. Not to seem flip about the hardworking people who don't benefit, but there are winners and losers in every market shift. posted by
mattloch
on Mar 1, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Nancy: "Sales - overhead = profit. Increase overhead and profit decreases. I'm sorry, I'm not an economist or a deep thinker here but in my simple math a minus is a minus and all the charts and graphs won't change that. " posted by
witterpitters
on Mar 1, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Way back when, weren't minimum wage jobs for high schoolers to earn extra money & get some job training? During the summer many of my friends worked the sheds. I never thought minimum wage was supposed to be an "income" for a family of four! I was considering looking into starting a business but I have now decided to not do that. posted by
anglo1
on Mar 1, 2008 at 06:26 PM
I owned a couple of businesses in Shafter in the past and I paid our part time help minimum wage only because I had to. The employees that had brains and could help me make more money or make my job easier were paid more. I think their should be a training wage available for a short period especially for workers that fall under the child labor laws and work only a few hours a week. I agree the minimum wage for adults with children is to low, so don't go to work some place that only pays minimum wage if it's not enough. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that lay offs and a reduction in hours and an increase in prices are the reality. The small independent business are the ones that suffer the most, the ones most on these blogs praise over the corporations, because they don't have the buying power or the central kitchens to prepare foods for their franchises etc. Skills and education are the key. You must make yourself more valuable to employers. I know there are circumstances [layoffs and downsizing ] that make that a non issue but that is not norm. I have flip flopped on the min. wage issue before and still really don't know what it should be defined as. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 1, 2008 at 07:23 PM
posted by
FreeCognate
on Mar 1, 2008 at 08:30 PM
TomW, Thanks for conceding that I'm not advocating "eat the poor." I honestly don't understand why you linked to that site. It doesn't support your argument. Your study lists two of its key findings as:
See how key findings support my argument and not yours? Furthermore, your study concludes with "Because economic theory is ambiguous on how minimum wages affect educational attainment, additional empirical research is needed to answer these important questions" (your link, end of report). Fortunately, there are some other important, more recent studies to note that shed additional light on the subject. For example, a couple of profs from Johns Hopkins found that "Overall, the increase in the minimum wage proposed by President Clinton would increase transitions into jobs and out of school by 17.2 percentage points for teens initially in school but not employed" (2). The study further demonstrated a disproportionate impact upon minority students, who are both more likely to lose their job and more likely to drop out of school after a minimum wage increase (about 34% ). Dr. Joe Sabia studied the impact of the minimum wage increase on single mothers, one of the at risk groups frequently highlighted by proponents of minimum wage increases. The study demonstrated that single mothers who are well educated are not impacted by the minimum wage increase (because they don't work minimum wage jobs anyway); however, minimum wage increases on the lives of single mothers are decidedly negative. The study found that: "For single mothers without a high school diploma, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 6.0 percent reduction in employment, an 8.5 percent reduction in steady work (1,040 annual hours), and a 14.5 percent reduction in full-time work (1,820 annual hours). Additionally, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leads to a 7.9 percent reduction in usual weekly hours worked, an 8.3 percent reduction in annual weeks worked, and a 9.9 percent reduction in annual hours worked for single mothers without a high school diploma. In sum, despite increased wage rates among single mothers who keep their jobs, the reduction in employment and hours causes an 8.8 percent reduction in net income." (1) And you ignore my distinction between "traps" and "openings." When minimum wages "curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups" while at the same time "not reduc[ing] poverty rates" then that sure seems to qualify as a trap and not an opening. This minimum wage increase is not going to keep families out of poverty. Moving out of poverty requires the acquisition of employable skills. Government-supported job training programs have demonstrated strong success rates for helping individuals get out of poverty and out of minimum wage work. "These workers can increase their earnings by between 10 percent and 156 percent, compared with similar workers who do not go through training." (3) The government's role should be to help its citizens find new options so that they can avoid being trapped within minimum wage jobs for the entirety of their lives. (1) http://www.epionline.org/st... (2) http://www.epionline.org/st... (3) http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERIC...
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM
So much “wisdom” from our “resident handyman cum economist” has been passed along here while I was gone (earning that evil lucre BTW) I’ll have to answer them point by point. This will make it easier for said “economist” to follow as well as for the general edification of others.
And yeah TomW, California is doin soooo well economically! LOL! TomW: Tony, I am self-employed so I guess whatever I think is the classic attitude of a small business person. By the way, I'm not sure if you caught it, but this hike also raised the minimum wage for people who provide their own tools to 16/hr. That bumps my hourly charge as well.
TomW: Chico, there's no such thing as "liberal economics" or "conservative economics". Of course, if you understood economics, you'd know that too. I think a follow up piece should clear all this up for you though I waited for you to avail us of your teachings in a simplistic fashion. What I got is what I am dealing with now I guess. I guess I expected too much. It obviously goes without saying that politics and economics are so closely related (one utilizing the other to support policy decisions) that to say economics is merely economics without regard to the political and other exogenous influences transcends sophistry to the point of…….. well, TomW! TomW: Can you go back and ask those business owners how their sales are year over year? With inflation up, I wouldn't be surprised if business was off. It now appears Tom is arguing with himself. He is the one after all, who has maintained that, taken in the macro sense, minimum wage increases are not inflationary, merely stimulative and at the appropriate level to boot. Savings and investment arguments be damned! One would require a program to keep up with his economic “positions” I guess. TomW: ………..studies show that increasing the minimum wage actually increase employment across the economy because forcing money to the bottom of the economy whick increases churn. In a macro sense, the economy is helped by passing money through as many hands as possible before it returns to the government where it was made. Assuming the whick is just a typo and not some reference to a Samuelson “economic candle theory”, and the chum is as in fishing, this is merely a rehash of TomW's dried up previous hash regarding the “macro” efficacy of priming the economic pump from the lowest levels ostensibly as this is where it will be most likely immediately spent and thus help the economy. Of course if he really knew anything about macro economics he’d know that a healthy economy requires consumption at an appropriate level as well as savings and investment. When you do glue lams you can save on nails right TomW? (a little handyman lingo to make it relevant to my favorite economics teach). But you gotta invest in a gun as well as refills of glue (nail equivalents).
Or nailing jello to drywall even utilizing your newly aquired glue gun!........ posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Likely TomW will wish to nail gun my punkin to a wooden corral gate sometime soon. Perhaps just utilizing his own tortured "economic" nostrums and in print form as opposed to the utilziation of a real nail gun esse! But yassee, he won't git the chance ta work fer me. I don't pay his "up the min-wage food chain" exorbitant per hour handy man to white collar knuckleheads that never learned to do their own sh*t wages! Hell, if I'm gonna pay thet kinda wages I'll get me someone with a dba, bus lic, and cleans up good ta boot! I even know one I kin place bets wif on the side. He's givin long odds on HRC right now BTW! posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM
BTW Saberhagen, why not just make the minimum wage $100? Bet that'd make our "handyman" happy as a clam with a shell on "Cribs"!
(or a Duroc rootin' around in moistened heifer dust!) posted by
allRED
on Mar 2, 2008 at 03:00 PM
The check is in the mail Week Last 2 digits of your SSN Receive your check by week of 1 00 - 09 July 23 2 10 - 19 July 30 3 20 - 29 August 6 4 30 - 39 August 13 5 40 - 49 August 20 6 50 - 59 August 27 7 60 - 69 Sept. 3 8 70 - 79 Sept. 10 9 80 - 89 Sept. 17 10 90 - 99 Sept. 24 For married taxpayers who filed a joint return, the first Social Security Number on the return determines the mailing date.Source: Internal Revenue Service posted by
TomW
on Mar 2, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Chico, all I can say is wow. Thanks for the long thoughtful response. Give a bit of respect and you'll get some in return. So much “wisdom” from our “resident handyman cum economist” has been passed along here while I was gone (earning that evil lucre BTW) I’ll have to answer them point by point. This will make it easier for said “economist” to follow as well as for the general edification of others. Well, you didn't start out so well, but it gets better.
And yeah TomW, California is doin soooo well economically! LOL! Let's start with the last bit and move back. I was specifically speaking of areas (like NY and SF), not states, but a comparison of states that have no minimum wage other than the Federal and states that have local higher minimum wages should just as easily prove my point. As for the hyperbole, you're right. Let's take the hyperbole out. At the end of the day, the pony in your pile of manure is that you guess business would be better off without a government-enforced minimum wage. I'll grant you that some businesses may well be. The economy as a whole wouldn't though since I know from reading my liberal econmists from Smith to Friedman that capital tends to pool in a capitalist system. Forcing money to the bottom of the economic ladder preserves the capitalist system and is good for the whole economy. TomW: Tony, I am self-employed so I guess whatever I think is the classic attitude of a small business person. By the way, I'm not sure if you caught it, but this hike also raised the minimum wage for people who provide their own tools to 16/hr. That bumps my hourly charge as well.
Hmm, Chico, you must have missed the context. Go back and reread this comment as it relates to the one above it.
You missed it too, Chico. The LAW ITSELF (WE'RE YELLING NOW, RIGHT?) SAYS THAT FOR ANY JOB WHERE PEOPLE PROVIDE THEIR OWN TOOLS THE MINIMUM WAGE IS NOW 16 DOLLARS AN HOUR. Where this "filters up" not just to me, though I use myself as an example of a self-employed, middle-class wage earner, but to all people who work in the trades, is that we generally set our rates as a multiple of the people in our employ or the semi-skilled competition. And yeah, I'll probably buy more stuff if I've got a bit more scratch. TomW: Chico, there's no such thing as "liberal economics" or "conservative economics". Of course, if you understood economics, you'd know that too. I think a follow up piece should clear all this up for you though I waited for you to avail us of your teachings in a simplistic fashion. What I got is what I am dealing with now I guess. I guess I expected too much. It obviously goes without saying that politics and economics are so closely related (one utilizing the other to support policy decisions) that to say economics is merely economics without regard to the political and other exogenous influences transcends sophistry to the point of…….. well, TomW! Actually, Chico, in the world of "celebrity economists" you have people that take sides. Economics is just numbers. Politics is related to economics, but economics aren't really related to politics. It's hard to believe in this world that something can actually exist without caring whether it's liberal or conservative, but it does. It's called reality and it's the stuff that doesn't go away when you go to sleep at night. The current recession doesn't care about Bush or Clinton or Limbaugh or you or me. It cares about lending rates and trade deficits. As for me availing you of my wisdom, I'll try my best. If you wanna talk, you know I'm happy to respond. I don't think you're dumb at all. Misguided and pigheaded, but not stupid. If you ever got a hankering to take that chip off your shoulder and talk, you could learn faster than most. TomW: Can you go back and ask those business owners how their sales are year over year? With inflation up, I wouldn't be surprised if business was off. It now appears Tom is arguing with himself. He is the one after all, who has maintained that, taken in the macro sense, minimum wage increases are not inflationary, merely stimulative and at the appropriate level to boot. Savings and investment arguments be damned! One would require a program to keep up with his economic “positions” I guess. You've once again missed the sense here. Inflation, not the minimum wage, has caused a number of these businesses' concerns. TomW: ………..studies show that increasing the minimum wage actually increase employment across the economy because forcing money to the bottom of the economy whick increases churn. In a macro sense, the economy is helped by passing money through as many hands as possible before it returns to the government where it was made. Assuming the whick is just a typo and not some reference to a Samuelson “economic candle theory”, and the chum is as in fishing, this is merely a rehash of TomW's dried up previous hash regarding the “macro” efficacy of priming the economic pump from the lowest levels ostensibly as this is where it will be most likely immediately spent and thus help the economy. Of course if he really knew anything about macro economics he’d know that a healthy economy requires consumption at an appropriate level as well as savings and investment. When you do glue lams you can save on nails right TomW? (a little handyman lingo to make it relevant to my favorite economics teach). But you gotta invest in a gun as well as refills of glue (nail equivalents). You were right about the whick being which. Funny that in the same sentence you'd mistake the term churn for the word chum, but somehow you managed to make sense of it. I do notice your studious avoidance of the fact that minimum wage increases boost the lowest 3 quintiles of income actually driving both savings and consumption throughout the middle class. In the meantime, you should also know that the most money in the greatest number of hands benefits free markets as the wisdom of crowds in a multiple of the size of the crowd.
Or nailing jello to drywall even utilizing your newly aquired glue gun!........
Actually, the problem with anecdotal data is that you and I in the same room seeing the same thing would probably walk out of the room with very different anecdotes and certainly with different lessons learned. It may be tough for you to pin down some of this macro stuff, Chico, but I know you could do it if you tried. What I was pointing out was that Tony likes to use his one bad or good experience with something to write off hundreds of years of history and proven fact. I actually like the guy a lot and it's too bad that most of the time I'm talking to him we're punching each other in the teeth. Actually, he reminds me a lot of you in some ways: basically a good guy who I disagree with most of the time. As for your bit about not hiring me, you couldn't afford me anyway. My rates are set by all the factors of the job, including the folk I gotta work for. BWAHAHAHA! posted by
TomW
on Mar 2, 2008 at 10:59 PM
FreeCognate. I just had a super long post eaten somehow. I'll have a response tomorrow, but in the meantime, thanks for those links. Good reading. posted by
TomW
on Mar 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM
BTW, Chico, I was gonna let this slide so as not to derail the thread totally, but why would you use glue on a gluelam? posted by
possummomma
on Mar 3, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Nancy, You're usually the one who hates condescension. So, color me surprised that you said "Thanks to those who understand the reality and not the ideal." In the past, you've jumped on me for speaking to a poster with such attitude (even if the attitude was only perceived by you and the facts were justified). I took your criticisms to heart and made efforts to tone that down. With that in mind, I hope you consider your own behavior, here. Your business is one business. It's very, very small (with only two employees). Prices don't go up for the entire population because of your bottom line. The only thing that is certain is that prices will always increase. They increased before there was even such a thing as a minimum wage. What problem are YOU having seeing that? Places like McDonalds and Walmart and other mega-chains that pay minimum wage aren't going to suffer in the slightest from paying a wage that will put some (not much) food on the tables of others. Frankly, if some of the mega-corporation CEOs and CFOs would take a percent off their annual salaries, there's not reason for any prices to go up. I find it hard to sympathize with a company that whines about paying minimum wage because it's "cutting their profit" when the people in upper management and/or corporate positions are making more than the salaries of three or four hundred of their minimum wage employees. I think that if you have more than fifty employees, then you should be expected to pay at least minimum wage, if not a LIVING wage. Minimum wage increases are the least of the problems with our economy. Other countries demand more from businesses (on a humanitarian and social front) and those countries have some of the healthiest, properous populations in the world. Keeping such large numbers of people below the poverty line ALSO sucks for the economy. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 3, 2008 at 02:01 AM
Possum. First of all I don't consider it condescending to say thanks to those who look at things in a realistic way rather than those who are idealistic. In an ideal world, we would all have plenty of money, get big salaries, and no one's business would suffer. If that sounded condescending, then I apologize to those who felt that way. It's not my intention to insult anyone but having been a small business owner in the past, I know how minimum raises affect them. I don't own a business these days, that was just an example to simplify my point. Whether it affects the entire economy at that time or not, it certainly affects the small business owner. Businesses having to cut hours or lay people off doesn't help the economy either. The problem is hardly local though, and hardly just one business as it affects all of them all across the country. That's bound to have some effect on all the economy. As for big business, I certainly agree that CEO's et al are vastly overpaid but that's not our decision to make in a free society. None of my posts were about big business though, they all were intended for small businesses only. The few who were interviewed by TBC were small local businesses and yet some folks here on the blog refused to believe the hike would adversely affect them, and in turn the local economy, even if it is in a small way. Again, businesses pulling in millions a year most likely won't feel the pinch the way the mom and pop operations do and that was my entire point. Thanks for bringing it to my attention that I sounded condescending. I guess we all can come off that way even when it was unintentional. I don't see it, but if you did, others may have too. (one might wonder why I'm posting at 2 AM..you wouldn't be the only one....I hate this waking up at this terrible hour and not being able to go back to sleep.) posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 3, 2008 at 07:31 AM
First of all, the reference to the glue lams was an obscure reference to another tradesman's post one time about glue lams and nails. It was, admittedly obscure and probably a bad example to throw in (it was done as a joke, I thought it might get a laugh out of you. Failing in that, I will suffice it to say I should have used a more topical analogy. So I will hereon -- taken in the context of all your posts with links (as FC has aptly pointed out many of which you simply must not have really read as they don't support your argument - in point of fact do quite the reverse) to what you refer to as real "data", were I to buy you a new hammer I'm sure most of your problems would become nails!". "The Google" (another shrubism for you and RF's pleasure) is your friend. Providing you actually read what you link to! As to me not being able to "afford" your high wage, I seriously doubt that. But why should I waste money when I can get as good a job done much cheaper? Its called business and, Mattloch's brilliant "then everyone will have more money" economic analysis notwithstanding, I will keep mine thank you. (at least as much as tax laws and other manifestations of the MMFE societal system will allow me to keep). Note: MMFE=Mattloch Money For Everybody TomW, the operative word in your posts (and, admittedly what set me off) is condescension. You allow that you will be happy to "teach" those of us who disagree with you economics and, while I really see no need to delve into our relative academic economic backgrounds, I would put mine up against yours any day of the week. The difference (especially with regard to macro effects) is experience. Yes I have the "anecdotal" experience you decry from running small businesses, but I also have been in strumental in running some fairly large ones as well. And in places where I could actually judge the affects of policy changes trickling through the various economies involved. From both a micro and macro level (various countries Govt levels). So the condescension and hubris dripping from your posts is palpable. (actually you could nail it to a glue lam - haha!). I'll admit your layers above Mattloch in your grasp of the intricacies inherent in economic principles and policy, however you end at the self same self serving prosaic place.I will not, however, stoop to offering you a lesson in economic theory. Remember the "teaching a Duroc to sing analogy"?? (I really don't feel like being annoyed) posted by
TomW
on Mar 3, 2008 at 09:02 PM
FreeCognate: TomW, Thanks for conceding that I'm not advocating "eat the poor." Not a problem. I didn;t want to say you were, just that it was teetering on that edge. I honestly don't understand why you linked to that site. It doesn't support your argument. Your study lists two of its key findings as:
See how key findings support my argument and not yours? Well, I think the goal posts are shifting a bit but let's establish what they are. My argument is that the minimum wage does in fact help the whole economy. Neither of those points address that central point of mine. Indirectly, a healthier economy will have lower unemployment and will actually help those in poverty by increasing demand for services, but the key finding as related to poverty are specifically reflective of the fact that the majority of people making minimum wage live in households that are already above the poverty level. Now if you have two people with no kids making minimum wage and the minimum wage goes up, those people won't cross any thresholds, but they will be better off. As for the educational attainment, you stated as fact that it contributed to drop out rates but the studies are not conclusive. If you had said that it may contribute, I'd grant you that. Furthermore, your study concludes with "Because economic theory is ambiguous on how minimum wages affect educational attainment, additional empirical research is needed to answer these important questions" (your link, end of report). Fortunately, there are some other important, more recent studies to note that shed additional light on the subject. For example, a couple of profs from Johns Hopkins found that "Overall, the increase in the minimum wage proposed by President Clinton would increase transitions into jobs and out of school by 17.2 percentage points for teens initially in school but not employed" (2). The study further demonstrated a disproportionate impact upon minority students, who are both more likely to lose their job and more likely to drop out of school after a minimum wage increase (about 34% ). I'm not arguing the opposite side of this from you. Your link to the Folks at Johns Hopkins were studying the exact same data so when the report was released doesn't really have that much bearing. I also understand that this was their prediction, not their observation. One of the other problems I have with the particular dataset they use is that those increases in the minimum wage occured during a strong recession. I'm not saying that the data is bad, just that it may be non-representative. Dr. Joe Sabia studied the impact of the minimum wage increase on single mothers, one of the at risk groups frequently highlighted by proponents of minimum wage increases. The study demonstrated that single mothers who are well educated are not impacted by the minimum wage increase (because they don't work minimum wage jobs anyway); however, minimum wage increases on the lives of single mothers are decidedly negative. The study found that: "For single mothers without a high school diploma, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 6.0 percent reduction in employment, an 8.5 percent reduction in steady work (1,040 annual hours), and a 14.5 percent reduction in full-time work (1,820 annual hours). Additionally, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leads to a 7.9 percent reduction in usual weekly hours worked, an 8.3 percent reduction in annual weeks worked, and a 9.9 percent reduction in annual hours worked for single mothers without a high school diploma. In sum, despite increased wage rates among single mothers who keep their jobs, the reduction in employment and hours causes an 8.8 percent reduction in net income." (1) One thing that you've left off here is that single mothers make up about 5% of people who receive minimum wage. It also leaves off the benefits to single mothers who make above the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is a blunt tool and there are people who end up being hurt by it directly. The EITC tax credit for this group is an excellent idea and some combination of wage increases and tax credits could do the most possible good while minimizing damage. And you ignore my distinction between "traps" and "openings." When minimum wages "curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups" while at |