How high of a minimum wage would you be willing to tolerate?

[Moadar]

I don't think there really is a true minimum wage because once you raise minimum wages, everything else goes up in price to compensate for that. Rent, food, goods, etc... It all goes up.

Don't get me wrong, I think minimum wages need to go up, because regardless, inflation is going to happen. Thus, there should never be considered a max in terms of minimum wage because it will and should go up to compensate for inflation.

Cap ceo salaries at $300k a year and there will be more than enough to bump min wage to $15/hr without raising costs.

[kamuimac]

Yes, but the increase in prices will be strictly less than the increase in the minimum wage, as labour is not 100% of the product/service's costs.

ofc its not - but you are forgeting that all labour costs will go up meaning cost liek distribution marketing etc etc will also go up making the final price significantly higher then just by amount of raising wages.

- - - Updated - - -

Cap ceo salaries at $300k a year and there will be more than enough to bump min wage to $15/hr without raising costs.

yes because as we all clearly know the job of burger flipper and CEO is equaly worth

some people clearly dream about communism here.

[Nadiru]

Labor costs increase the price of goods not because labor is a large part of the overall costs but because increases in cost inputs increases the minimum cash flow required for the firm to function, which increases prices. In any capitalist society, prices carry not just profits but the cash flows needed to maintain operations. This may seem like a trivial distinction but it's important because things which affect the financing of firms tend to have larger impacts than the numbers would suggest, which is why price fluctuations for other inputs tends to affect firms more drastically.

[Deleted]

Minimum wage needs to be high enough to keep the plebs from rioting.

Or at least, that's the true idea behind minimum wage (and welfare) from a historic point of view.

[Zephyr Storm]

Ya you keep living in that bubble of yours, Reality states different.

Going to collage, Getting a degree (and a fuck ton of debt) does not mean you are going to get a high paying job. Once again look at the MILLIONS of students who already did it and yet are having to work stock at Wal-Mart.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter for a lot of people is that they chose degrees/careers with little to no job opportunities after graduation. Sure, this doesn't apply to EVERYONE, but it sure as hell applies to way more people than you're pretending it does.

When people keep getting degrees in X major when X major has no jobs available for them after school, and at the same time Y major has far less people going into it and the field for Y major is begging people to do it because they don't have enough people to fill slots......yeah, that's no one's fault but the idiotic people who chose a career with little to no opportunities for them.

Obviously this train of thought won't work for every single person in existence, but the fact of the matter is....it CAN help a lot of people who are currently floundering in their own self pity because the career path they chose was fucking stupid from the get-go.

And don't tell me people can't figure this shit out. I had this all figured out as a sophomore in high school. I chose a career path that I KNEW would have ample job opportunities for me after college and then based the rest of my education off of that.......and lo and behold I'm doing just fine now. Because I took the time to put a little fucking effort into it back when I needed to. Unfortunately, most people are just too fucking lazy, stupid, or just don't care enough to take the time and effort to do what I did as a 15-16 year old.

[Deleted]

Against. I am a proponent of the Swedish system, with rly strong unions.

[RaoBurning]

Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter for a lot of people is that they chose degrees/careers with little to no job opportunities after graduation. Sure, this doesn't apply to EVERYONE, but it sure as hell applies to way more people than you're pretending it does.

When people keep getting degrees in X major when X major has no jobs available for them after school, and at the same time Y major has far less people going into it and the field for Y major is begging people to do it because they don't have enough people to fill slots......yeah, that's no one's fault but the idiotic people who chose a career with little to no opportunities for them.

Obviously this train of thought won't work for every single person in existence, but the fact of the matter is....it CAN help a lot of people who are currently floundering in their own self pity because the career path they chose was fucking stupid from the get-go.

And don't tell me people can't figure this shit out. I had this all figured out as a sophomore in high school. I chose a career path that I KNEW would have ample job opportunities for me after college and then based the rest of my education off of that.......and lo and behold I'm doing just fine now. Because I took the time to put a little fucking effort into it back when I needed to. Unfortunately, most people are just too fucking lazy, stupid, or just don't care enough to take the time and effort to do what I did as a 15-16 year old.

A lot can change in 4-8 years, depending on when you want a person to start planning. Entire job fields open up, others change needs, and hell, things can change while you're in college. Then you're potentially super boned for prospects with the added bonus of student debt! Either way, planning ahead might be a fine enough idea when it works, but as has been said: individual solutions don't fix systemic problems. Picking a profitable degree/trade doesn't solve the issue of Wal-Mart et. al. paying so little their employees require welfare to make ends meet (and teaching them how to get on the dole, to boot), effectively allowing the government to subsidize their profit margins. Every other argument for a higher, livable minimum wage aside, I think that one ought to be a compelling reason to have them cut the shit.

The counter argument I hear is, "well, how much welfare would they need without the low-wage job?" The answer is, obviously, more; though the inquiry is itself a deflection attempting to make these companies look like heroes rather than the wannabe robber barons they really are.

[Mackeyser]

ofc its not - but you are forgeting that all labour costs will go up meaning cost liek distribution marketing etc etc will also go up making the final price significantly higher then just by amount of raising wages.

That's just not true.

If the minimum wage goes up a dollar per hour, there is a limit (as in the mathematical term... an example of that would be if you pee in the ocean, there is a limit to how much water you warm with your pee. You don't raise the entire oceans an infinitesimally small amount, beyond a certain limit, there is exactly zero effect).

Using the dollar per hour example, all those below the increased threshold get the increase, obviously. However, the farther up the labor scale you go, the less effect you have until it has no effect at all. While a person making $15/hr might see a very modest raise, If the minimum wage increases to $11/hour, it is unlikely the person making $20/hour is affected at all.

What happens in reality is that there is compression of the lowest end toward the new minimum wage and then as the economy expands, those jobs that are worth more get allocated greater resources as competition creates scarcity.

What people miss is that when minimum wages are increased, it stimulates demand across ALL sectors, including in high end luxury goods beyond the reach of those affected by the minimum wage due to that increased demand. Thus, an increase in the minimum wage leads to greater pay for CEOs (at a large multiple, no less) due to the improved performance of the corporation.

Now, the individuals that have the hardest time are small businesses that can't pass along the cost to their customers or are not capable of negotiating lower input prices, be it raw materials, wholesale goods, energy or capital goods costs. Think of a small diner in a rural town. While the waitress might get paid more, it is unlikely that sales will increase, food costs will decrease or the gas or electric bill will go down to compensate. And, if the rural market they serve can't accommodate the higher prices, then the diner will have to reduce the amount of workers or raise prices and deal with less demand.

This is but one example of how micro and macro economics are different and how people confuse the two. Sometimes, the very makings of a robust economy means that there are micro losses in the face of macro gains.

Now, do we forgo macroeconomic gains in order to mitigate microeconomic losses? That's never good policy, but it doesn't help the waitperson who loses their job or has their hours cut.

Lastly, as someone pointed out, labor is only one cost. In some fields, it's a major expense, but in other fields, labor is almost a non-factor. Thus, when the minimum wage goes up, some goods experience a slight increase. Others see no change at all.

The point is that there is absolutely NO WAY that if the minimum wage is increased, that all goods and services will go up by the same percentage such that those at the minimum wage will see no benefit. That's just now how business or the economy works. To make that argument, one must discount innovation, iterative mitigation of the cost persistent processes, iterative improvements to persistent processes, introduction of new processes and/or materials, economies of scale and a host of other factors.

Even if we restrict the conversation to ONLY the minimum wage vs the larger issue of the value of work in an automated economy, even still, the claims being made about a close linear relationship between wage increases and the CPI, for example, just don't hold up to the facts.

[Glorious Leader]

That's just not true.

If the minimum wage goes up a dollar per hour, there is a limit (as in the mathematical term... an example of that would be if you pee in the ocean, there is a limit to how much water you warm with your pee. You don't raise the entire oceans an infinitesimally small amount, beyond a certain limit, there is exactly zero effect).

Using the dollar per hour example, all those below the increased threshold get the increase, obviously. However, the farther up the labor scale you go, the less effect you have until it has no effect at all. While a person making $15/hr might see a very modest raise, If the minimum wage increases to $11/hour, it is unlikely the person making $20/hour is affected at all.

What happens in reality is that there is compression of the lowest end toward the new minimum wage and then as the economy expands, those jobs that are worth more get allocated greater resources as competition creates scarcity.

What people miss is that when minimum wages are increased, it stimulates demand across ALL sectors, including in high end luxury goods beyond the reach of those affected by the minimum wage due to that increased demand. Thus, an increase in the minimum wage leads to greater pay for CEOs (at a large multiple, no less) due to the improved performance of the corporation.

Now, the individuals that have the hardest time are small businesses that can't pass along the cost to their customers or are not capable of negotiating lower input prices, be it raw materials, wholesale goods, energy or capital goods costs. Think of a small diner in a rural town. While the waitress might get paid more, it is unlikely that sales will increase, food costs will decrease or the gas or electric bill will go down to compensate. And, if the rural market they serve can't accommodate the higher prices, then the diner will have to reduce the amount of workers or raise prices and deal with less demand.

This is but one example of how micro and macro economics are different and how people confuse the two. Sometimes, the very makings of a robust economy means that there are micro losses in the face of macro gains.

Now, do we forgo macroeconomic gains in order to mitigate microeconomic losses? That's never good policy, but it doesn't help the waitperson who loses their job or has their hours cut.

Lastly, as someone pointed out, labor is only one cost. In some fields, it's a major expense, but in other fields, labor is almost a non-factor. Thus, when the minimum wage goes up, some goods experience a slight increase. Others see no change at all.

The point is that there is absolutely NO WAY that if the minimum wage is increased, that all goods and services will go up by the same percentage such that those at the minimum wage will see no benefit. That's just now how business or the economy works. To make that argument, one must discount innovation, iterative mitigation of the cost persistent processes, iterative improvements to persistent processes, introduction of new processes and/or materials, economies of scale and a host of other factors.

Even if we restrict the conversation to ONLY the minimum wage vs the larger issue of the value of work in an automated economy, even still, the claims being made about a close linear relationship between wage increases and the CPI, for example, just don't hold up to the facts.

Precisely! Virtually every argument against an increase in the min wage is a gross fallacy of composition. Conservative economics does this all the time, hell the austrians deny their is a macro economy and the current mainstream thought mereky tries to extrapolate macro from micro. You cant. More is different. Emergent properties exist.

[Mackeyser]

Precisely! Virtually every argument against an increase in the min wage is a gross fallacy of composition. Conservative economics does this all the time, hell the austrians deny their is a macro economy and the current mainstream thought mereky tries to extrapolate macro from micro. You cant. More is different. Emergent properties exist.

Yep. It's making economic arguments with little/no understanding of economics, social policy arguments with little/no understanding of social policy, government arguments with little/no understanding of governance and/or the role of government, including the bureaucracy, etc.

And don't get me started on that whole Von Mises Austrian School of Economics stuff. It's more maddening than discussing infrastructure with a Libertarian...

[Goatfish]

ofc its not - but you are forgeting that all labour costs will go up meaning cost liek distribution marketing etc etc will also go up making the final price significantly higher then just by amount of raising wages.

- - - Updated - - -



yes because as we all clearly know the job of burger flipper and CEO is equaly worth

some people clearly dream about communism here.

I think it goes without saying that there is a huge difference between 30k a year making 15/hr, and 300k a year.

And honestly, a lot of things are deceptive. http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/salary-of-doctors/ for instance.

None of it matters in the end, because we aren't looking at just the cost, we are looking at the humanitarian aspect. You can't solve an issue of a job being payed shit by just telling them "Well you shouldn't be working that job expecting to make a living!". Anyone who works 40+ hours a week shouldn't need government assistance or be unable to buy basic necessities. Regardless of what job it is. If in order to do that we need to take pay cuts from people making more in a year than some people will their whole life? I don't see an issue here. People who make such absurd amounts of money literally CAN NOT put enough back into the economy in a prosperous way. They are literally draining the economy dry so they can have a classic car collection and a billion dollar home.

[kamuimac]

I think it goes without saying that there is a huge difference between 30k a year making 15/hr, and 300k a year.

And honestly, a lot of things are deceptive. http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/salary-of-doctors/ for instance.

None of it matters in the end, because we aren't looking at just the cost, we are looking at the humanitarian aspect. You can't solve an issue of a job being payed shit by just telling them "Well you shouldn't be working that job expecting to make a living!". Anyone who works 40+ hours a week shouldn't need government assistance or be unable to buy basic necessities. Regardless of what job it is. If in order to do that we need to take pay cuts from people making more in a year than some people will their whole life? I don't see an issue here. People who make such absurd amounts of money literally CAN NOT put enough back into the economy in a prosperous way. They are literally draining the economy dry so they can have a classic car collection and a billion dollar home.

and again you are dreaming about communism - socialism at best - such systems dont work unless your society is very very technologicaly advanced like skandinavian countries or germany/uk - most countries arent like this and it simply wouldnt work - you can see it perfeckly in Wenesuela for example where its whole economy went to shit in span of only 10 years because idiots with no idea of mangment promised people social heaven because oil - and it f... itself - any country follwing stupid people with stupid social ideas will end like this unless they plan such stuff in span of 100-200 years not 5-10. so in case of US what could work would be :"we will be gradualy raising minimum wage from 9 to 15 dollar in next 20 years making it 30cents raise a year" so it follows inflation .

and the idea about someone working 40 hours a week in any work being able to have a comfortable life is a fallacy in itself - it never worked it never will work - the reason why white americans rememeber 30s-50s so fondly was because they have no idea who worked on those living conditions in reality - and those who did were afro americans and mexicans working for slave wages the same jobs that now people try to live off - and before those 2 it was italians/irish - there was always semi-slave class in US just people deliberately ignored those facts because those were 1st-2nd generations of immigrants not 4th + which cosider themselves native americans (which is another idiocy in itself ) - your problem now is that due to internet etc you cant have semi-slave class anymore - and thats why your living conditions will only continiue to grow worse.

[Karfal]

8.00

No more, no less.

[LedZeppelin]

Doesnt matter what the federal or state minimum wage is. The minimum wage is always $0.00.

[Goatfish]

and again you are dreaming about communism - socialism at best - such systems dont work unless your society is very very technologicaly advanced like skandinavian countries or germany/uk - most countries arent like this and it simply wouldnt work - you can see it perfeckly in Wenesuela for example where its whole economy went to shit in span of only 10 years because idiots with no idea of mangment promised people social heaven because oil - and it f... itself - any country follwing stupid people with stupid social ideas will end like this unless they plan such stuff in span of 100-200 years not 5-10. so in case of US what could work would be :"we will be gradualy raising minimum wage from 9 to 15 dollar in next 20 years making it 30cents raise a year" so it follows inflation .

and the idea about someone working 40 hours a week in any work being able to have a comfortable life is a fallacy in itself - it never worked it never will work - the reason why white americans rememeber 30s-50s so fondly was because they have no idea who worked on those living conditions in reality - and those who did were afro americans and mexicans working for slave wages the same jobs that now people try to live off - and before those 2 it was italians/irish - there was always semi-slave class in US just people deliberately ignored those facts because those were 1st-2nd generations of immigrants not 4th + which cosider themselves native americans (which is another idiocy in itself ) - your problem now is that due to internet etc you cant have semi-slave class anymore - and thats why your living conditions will only continiue to grow worse.

Communism means to promote the idea that everyone is equal and therefore deserves the same. This has never been my argument, and I've made multiple statements stating I believe otherwise. I make my statements based off facts, and those facts are commonly agreed upon by the vast majority of not only people, but professional economists as well.

1: The wage gap is far too large, and based off how things are going it is only going to get larger, which can cause an economic crash.
2: The far bottom end of earners in the USA are earning too little. No one is fighting for them to live comfortably, they should still have basic money management skills and be able to do minor financial planning. Even being the most frugal with planning, it's borderline impossible to live in many cities of 15k a year (minimum wage). That is also providing the people ACTUALLY get 40 hours a week, and not get stuck with part time or 32hr full time status, which by itself drops a person to 11k/yr BEFORE taxes, or $9,380 per year after taxes. This is using Arizona numbers, and using my own 'essential living' numbers which are fairly on the cheap side, and not counting food, I come up to ~$9340 for rent, phone, car payment/insurance, health insurance. Meaning if I was making minimum wage, at the average 32 hour week people are given here, I would have $40 for food, gas, and household essentials like soap for the entire year. If I managed to get a full 40hrs/week, I would have $11,529, minus the previous number for rent/insurance/govt sanctioned costs, I would have about $180/month to cover those other necessities.

That doesn't sound too bad, but I also want to add that my expenses are very low. I live close to work, I split a small 2 bedroom apartment with 3 people in a shitty part of town. My apartment complex has had issues with AC breaking, black mold, roach infestations among other things. I've had my insurance company for 10 years and add in homeowners bringing it to about a 30% discount, get a major discount on health insurance through my work, a military discount for my phone, and have fantastic credit for a good car loan.

What I'm saying is, the numbers I am using for basic living expenses are about as low as they can get, and are from the effort of extreme bargain hunting and luck. Most of my friends pay an extra $1200-$3000 per year for housing and an extra $1000+ for car/health insurance. Minimum wage even at 40 hours a week can NOT cover the average person, and that's just looking at it from a humanitarian standpoint and not the economic one that shows our top 10% of earners well on their way to owning the world and having a monopoly on peoples very livelihood.