Jobs affected by the [US] federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    I think it's a useful to consider the argument that maybe it's better for some people collect welfare over working at below "fair" wages. But I think it's equally as important to recognize that minimum wages reduces employment.

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/minimum-wage-and-job-loss-from-2006.html

    In terms of jobs lost, that means that 2,234,383 of the jobs lost in the U.S. economy since 2006 have been jobs that were directly impacted by the series of minimum wage increases that were mandated by the federal government in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

    Interestingly, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in 2006 was 144,427,000. In 2010, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in the U.S. was 5,363,000 less, standing at 139,064,000.

    So, in percentage terms of the change in total employment level from 2006 to 2010, jobs affected by the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006.


    Number of Individuals Earning the Current Level of the U.S. Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 or Less in 2006 and 2010


    Expanded analytics here - pointing out that minimum wage earners are overwhelmingly and disproportionately young (and presumably entry level positions):

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/visualizing-characteristics-of-minimum_10.html

    Distribution of Individuals Earning the U.S. Federal Minimum Wage ($7.25 per Hour) or Less by Age Group and Gender, 2010">


    In even starker terms - as minimum wages rise, there are fewer younger workers:
    Percentage of Number Employed for Age 16-19 and Age 20+ from Levels Recorded in November 2006, through December 2010">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 7:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidI think it's a useful to consider the argument that maybe it's better for some people collect welfare over working at below "fair" wages. But I think it's equally as important to recognize that minimum wages reduces employment.

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/minimum-wage-and-job-loss-from-2006.html

    In terms of jobs lost, that means that 2,234,383 of the jobs lost in the U.S. economy since 2006 have been jobs that were directly impacted by the series of minimum wage increases that were mandated by the federal government in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

    Interestingly, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in 2006 was 144,427,000. In 2010, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in the U.S. was 5,363,000 less, standing at 139,064,000.

    So, in percentage terms of the change in total employment level from 2006 to 2010, jobs affected by the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006.


    Number of Individuals Earning the Current Level of the U.S. Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 or Less in 2006 and 2010


    Expanded analytics here - pointing out that minimum wage earners are overwhelmingly and disproportionately young (and presumably entry level positions):

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/visualizing-characteristics-of-minimum_10.html

    Distribution of Individuals Earning the U.S. Federal Minimum Wage ($7.25 per Hour) or Less by Age Group and Gender, 2010">


    In even starker terms - as minimum wages rise, there are fewer younger workers:
    Percentage of Number Employed for Age 16-19 and Age 20+ from Levels Recorded in November 2006, through December 2010">


    Minimum wage is really low and there isn't too many places here that even pay that low. Our state minimum wage is higher than the federal. Even McDonalds pays more than minimum wage. Young people need to make more than minimum wage, if they ever hope to make it through college without being in debt over their head.

    Certainly we could create more jobs, if we paid workers a dollar a day. But we have to be realistic. Paying anything less than minimum wage isn';t being realistic, especially if gas goes up to $5. At anything less than minimum wage, you wouldn't even make enough money to travel to work. lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 7:43 PM GMT
    Am I missing something here? The subjects of the following sentences are vastly different.

    "jobs affected by the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006."

    !=
    "minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006."
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 12, 2011 7:45 PM GMT
    "you can prove ANYTHING with statistics"----Homer. J. Simpson
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    This thread is BS and doesn't merit any more posts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 7:55 PM GMT
    jockgymboy saidMinimum wage is really low and there isn't too many places here that even pay that low. Our state minimum wage is higher than the federal. Even McDonalds pays more than minimum wage. Young people need to make more than minimum wage, if they ever hope to make it through college without being in debt over their head.

    Certainly we could create more jobs, if we paid workers a dollar a day. But we have to be realistic. Paying anything less than minimum wage isn';t being realistic, especially if gas goes up to $5. At anything less than minimum wage, you wouldn't even make enough money to travel to work. lol


    Yes - I think part of the argument against minimum wage is that it would mean that students especially get at least some work experience for future better jobs. But with (higher) minimum wages as they've been enacted, this means they don't get a job at all. Small businesses especially (who it affects the most) are more likely to let these students go and not have someone than keep them on.

    From what I've heard McDonald's isn't a bad option as far as training goes or so I've heard... Ironically, Walmart is known to campaign for higher minimum wage because it hurts their competitors far more than it hurts them.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 12, 2011 8:02 PM GMT
    Look guys, don't humour riddler here...this is clearly a troll thread!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 8:12 PM GMT
    TrentGrad saidLook guys, don't humour riddler here...this is clearly a troll thread!


    Yep, if by "troll" your definition is someone who you apparently disagree with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 8:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy saidMinimum wage is really low and there isn't too many places here that even pay that low. Our state minimum wage is higher than the federal. Even McDonalds pays more than minimum wage. Young people need to make more than minimum wage, if they ever hope to make it through college without being in debt over their head.

    Certainly we could create more jobs, if we paid workers a dollar a day. But we have to be realistic. Paying anything less than minimum wage isn';t being realistic, especially if gas goes up to $5. At anything less than minimum wage, you wouldn't even make enough money to travel to work. lol


    Yes - I think part of the argument against minimum wage is that it would mean that students especially get at least some work experience for future better jobs. But with (higher) minimum wages as they've been enacted, this means they don't get a job at all. Small businesses especially (who it affects the most) are more likely to let these students go and not have someone than keep them on.

    From what I've heard McDonald's isn't a bad option as far as training goes or so I've heard... Ironically, Walmart is known to campaign for higher minimum wage because it hurts their competitors far more than it hurts them.


    Minimum wage used to be ok because things didn't cost so much like they do today. But look at the cost of education today? It's more than doubled in the last 10 years. How could anyone even go to college in order to get a better job, if minimum wage was any lower? You might have more kids working, but less being able to afford to go to college. But let's face, if you don't go to college, you will be working at Wal Mart the rest of your life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 8:24 PM GMT
    jockgymboy saidMinimum wage used to be ok because things didn't cost so much like they do today. But look at the cost of education today? It's more than doubled in the last 10 years. How could anyone even go to college in order to get a better job, if minimum wage was any lower? You might have more kids working, but less being able to afford to go to college. But let's face, if you don't go to college, you will be working at Wal Mart the rest of your life.


    On this I completely agree with you. I think education is a field that is about to be totally disrupted. I follow a number of sites that discuss emerging web technologies and services. There are a number of interesting startups attempting to change the map and cost equation of education (e.g. khanacademy.org).

    Most recently there the governor of Texas put out the case for a $10,000 4 year undergraduate degree. The costs of education have climbed substantially faster than inflation and as it stands, degrees are awarded not for what you know and can do, but for time served.

    Look for this to change. But insofar as minimum wage, I think the problem is that there are a lot of students who no longer bother looking for jobs or can't find jobs because small businesses don't see sufficient value given the cost (which to them is more than minimum wage like payroll taxes + training costs).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 8:32 PM GMT
    The whole blog piece is a hypothesis, pointing out the correlation between federal minimum wage increases and reduction of jobs paying less than minimum wage.

    Correlation != cause and effect.

    The recession is to blame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studiesSeveral researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias because the later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[71] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage virtually ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[72] More recently, T.D. Stanley has criticized Card and Krueger's methodology, suggesting that their results could signify either publication bias or the absence of an effect. Using a different methodology, however, he concludes that there is statistically significant evidence of publication bias and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.[73] In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conducted a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on disemployment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."[74]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 9:42 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe whole blog piece is a hypothesis, pointing out the correlation between federal minimum wage increases and reduction of jobs paying less than minimum wage.

    Correlation != cause and effect.

    The recession is to blame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studiesSeveral researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias because the later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[71] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage virtually ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[72] More recently, T.D. Stanley has criticized Card and Krueger's methodology, suggesting that their results could signify either publication bias or the absence of an effect. Using a different methodology, however, he concludes that there is statistically significant evidence of publication bias and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.[73] In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conducted a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on disemployment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."[74]


    Yes. But riddler and his ilk would like people to believe that this is the problem so they can argue for paying Americans what Chinese workers make. Chinese workers who have already - at a salary a $2/day - proven too expensive for several multinationals who are moving their production to Vietnam.

    It's also why they want to bust unions. There is simply no end to the greed and avarice of these people.

    And, of course, none of them would get out of bed and piss for minimum wage, let alone put in a full days' work. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidYes. But riddler and his ilk would like people to believe that this is the problem so they can argue for paying Americans what Chinese workers make. Chinese workers who have already - at a salary a $2/day - proven too expensive for several multinationals who are moving their production to Vietnam.

    It's also why they want to bust unions. There is simply no end to the greed and avarice of these people.

    And, of course, none of them would get out of bed and piss for minimum wage, let alone put in a full days' work. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I would be interested in a study that looked at duration that people are at minimum wage given the experience that you can get and the training you have. e.g. I'm assuming you've also heard the laments of particularly students that it's a catch-22 that they need more experience for the jobs they apply for, but they aren't able to get it.

    Rhetoric aside, let's approach this differently. Christian do you believe that there is a relationship between the productivity of say an average American worker or Chinese worker? And secondly that wages reflect this?

    Third, theoretically, why shouldn't minimum wages be a lot higher? How should they be set?

    Q - I wonder if you recognize the irony of your two statements. Nevertheless I take your point that there were likely other contributing factors in those intervening years but would you also acknowledge that for a lot of small businesses, would rather go with either no employees or hire ones that are more experienced/older when they're forced to pay more?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:14 AM GMT
    My statement "Recession is to blame" is my hypothesis, and much better supported by the evidence. Anyway, as to your other (unstated) hypothesis, namely, lowering the minimum wage will increase employment:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/would-cutting-the-minimum-wage-raise-employment/
    Here’s how the fallacy works: if some subset of the work force accepts lower wages, it can gain jobs. If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment.

    But if everyone takes a pay cut, that logic no longer applies. The only way a general cut in wages can increase employment is if it leads people to buy more across the board. And why should it do that?

    Well, the textbook argument — illustrated in this little writeup — runs like this: lower wages lead to a lower overall price level. This increases the real money supply, and therefore liquidity. As people try to make use of their excess liquidity, interest rates go down, leading to an overall rise in demand.

    Even in this case, it’s hard to see the point of cutting wages: you could achieve the same effect, much more easily, simply by having the Fed increase the money supply.

    But what if we’re in a liquidity trap, with short-run interest rates at zero? Then the Fed can’t achieve anything by increasing the money supply; but by the same token, wage cuts do nothing to increase demand.*

    Wait, it gets worse. A falling price level raises the real value of debt. To the extent that debtors are more likely to cut spending in such a case than creditors are to increase it — which seems likely — the effect of the wage cuts will actually be a fall in demand.

    And one more thing: to the extent that people expect further declines in wages and prices, this raises real interest rates, which is even more contractionary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidMy statement "Recession is to blame" is my hypothesis, and much better supported by the evidence.


    Can you elaborate? Also similarly, do you think that there is a limit to how high minimum wage should be and how do you see it should be set (presuming you don't see any relationship between unemployment and minimum wage)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:23 AM GMT
    Not being an ec major, here's my simplistic take on recession being the chicken and unemployment being the egg.
    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/link-between-recession-and-unemployment/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidYes. But riddler and his ilk would like people to believe that this is the problem so they can argue for paying Americans what Chinese workers make. Chinese workers who have already - at a salary a $2/day - proven too expensive for several multinationals who are moving their production to Vietnam.

    It's also why they want to bust unions. There is simply no end to the greed and avarice of these people.

    And, of course, none of them would get out of bed and piss for minimum wage, let alone put in a full days' work. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I would be interested in a study that looked at duration that people are at minimum wage given the experience that you can get and the training you have. e.g. I'm assuming you've also heard the laments of particularly students that it's a catch-22 that they need more experience for the jobs they apply for, but they aren't able to get it.

    Rhetoric aside, let's approach this differently. Christian do you believe that there is a relationship between the productivity of say an average American worker or Chinese worker? And secondly that wages reflect this?

    Third, theoretically, why shouldn't minimum wages be a lot higher? How should they be set?


    In terms of averages, it's probably very difficult to say who is more productive. I believe that Chinese workers are probably quite underpaid given the amount of profits their work results in.

    In terms of minimum wage in general, I think it probably needs to be raised and then pegged to inflation or some factor higher than inflation. I am opposed to any "race to the bottom" in terms of wages for labor. Frankly, I think if you have a business that is based in the US and your business plan requires you to pay less than minimum wage (which, frankly, is not very much), you probably don't have a very good business plan, or there isn't the demand necessary for people to pay a high enough price for the product or service.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:30 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidMy statement "Recession is to blame" is my hypothesis, and much better supported by the evidence. Anyway, as to your other (unstated) hypothesis, namely, lowering the minimum wage will increase employment:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/would-cutting-the-minimum-wage-raise-employment/
    Here’s how the fallacy works: if some subset of the work force accepts lower wages, it can gain jobs. If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment.

    But if everyone takes a pay cut, that logic no longer applies. The only way a general cut in wages can increase employment is if it leads people to buy more across the board. And why should it do that?

    Well, the textbook argument — illustrated in this little writeup — runs like this: lower wages lead to a lower overall price level. This increases the real money supply, and therefore liquidity. As people try to make use of their excess liquidity, interest rates go down, leading to an overall rise in demand.

    Even in this case, it’s hard to see the point of cutting wages: you could achieve the same effect, much more easily, simply by having the Fed increase the money supply.

    But what if we’re in a liquidity trap, with short-run interest rates at zero? Then the Fed can’t achieve anything by increasing the money supply; but by the same token, wage cuts do nothing to increase demand.*

    Wait, it gets worse. A falling price level raises the real value of debt. To the extent that debtors are more likely to cut spending in such a case than creditors are to increase it — which seems likely — the effect of the wage cuts will actually be a fall in demand.

    And one more thing: to the extent that people expect further declines in wages and prices, this raises real interest rates, which is even more contractionary.


    Thanks for the link. Though I see at least one problem. Krugman says: "if some subset of the work force accepts lower wages, it can gain jobs. If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment." But that's not what for instance the original links propose (or anyone to my knowledge).

    The idea behind not having a minimum wage that most people argue for is to increase both the supply of labor and also the demand for it. If workers are hired relative to their productivity, which I do believe, then the ones that are already at the higher wages are able to justify them. Where you get the increased employment is not in the increased profitability from a firm that cuts wages but from the businesses that are able to hire entry level unskilled workers for work that otherwise not be done.

    If you accept these are two different issues, I wonder if you happen to provide further detail on how it is the recession that has caused the unemployment. Do you accept the argument though that the consequences of minimum wage at a firm level are not necessarily the increase of wages but also at least in part (we can disagree on the percentage), there will be those who decide the costs are too high and fire workers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:39 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidYes. But riddler and his ilk would like people to believe that this is the problem so they can argue for paying Americans what Chinese workers make. Chinese workers who have already - at a salary a $2/day - proven too expensive for several multinationals who are moving their production to Vietnam.

    It's also why they want to bust unions. There is simply no end to the greed and avarice of these people.

    And, of course, none of them would get out of bed and piss for minimum wage, let alone put in a full days' work. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I would be interested in a study that looked at duration that people are at minimum wage given the experience that you can get and the training you have. e.g. I'm assuming you've also heard the laments of particularly students that it's a catch-22 that they need more experience for the jobs they apply for, but they aren't able to get it.

    Rhetoric aside, let's approach this differently. Christian do you believe that there is a relationship between the productivity of say an average American worker or Chinese worker? And secondly that wages reflect this?

    Third, theoretically, why shouldn't minimum wages be a lot higher? How should they be set?


    In terms of averages, it's probably very difficult to say who is more productive. I believe that Chinese workers are probably quite underpaid given the amount of profits their work results in.

    In terms of minimum wage in general, I think it probably needs to be raised and then pegged to inflation or some factor higher than inflation. I am opposed to any "race to the bottom" in terms of wages for labor. Frankly, I think if you have a business that is based in the US and your business plan requires you to pay less than minimum wage (which, frankly, is not very much), you probably don't have a very good business plan, or there isn't the demand necessary for people to pay a high enough price for the product or service.


    Personally, as someone who currently works with Chinese factories (and others elsewhere), the concerns over China's rise I think are generally overblown. The level of education and independent thought / creativity of workers is generally abysmal. The margins for manufacturing are horrible. The most often used example is how Apple has margins of 60%+ while Chinese manufacturers are lucky to get 5-10% despite low labor costs (though they're also terribly inefficient in how they use their labor). Obviously Apple in the US pays a heck of a lot more than minimum wage even in their stores as I understand it.

    I agree - I think if your business plan requires even workers at minimum wage in the West, it is a dangerous assumption to make unless it's intensely service oriented. The problem at least in the west is that the substitute isn't so much foreign workers but machinery/investments in automation. Would you agree that the competition insofar as unskilled labor goes in the US is as much automation as it is foreign workers be they from Mexico or China?

    I think you also pointed out that there wasn't so much a decline in US manufacturing given that output/volumes have been consistently rising but US manufacturing also employs significantly fewer people.

    You mention you think minimum wage should be raised. How would you decide how much to raise it though?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TrentGrad saidLook guys, don't humour riddler here...this is clearly a troll thread!


    Yep, if by "troll" your definition is someone who you apparently disagree with?

    riddler - This and a couple of other responses here is a perfect example why the quality of discussion in the threads is not too good. I experienced same thing (from same poster) when I presented a Gallup poll he didn't like. All I said when providing it was the results were interesting and showed the sensitivity of results to wording of the poll. The guy lectured me about how I had poor interpretation skills, etc., which had no basis from anything I said. I responded, but I think he ran away. So bottom line, don't take some folks too seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    The idea behind not having a minimum wage that most people argue for is to increase both the supply of labor and also the demand for it. If workers are hired relative to their productivity, which I do believe, then the ones that are already at the higher wages are able to justify them. Where you get the increased employment is not in the increased profitability from a firm that cuts wages but from the businesses that are able to hire entry level unskilled workers for work that otherwise not be done.

    If you accept these are two different issues, I wonder if you happen to provide further detail on how it is the recession that has caused the unemployment. Do you accept the argument though that the consequences of minimum wage at a firm level are not necessarily the increase of wages but also at least in part (we can disagree on the percentage), there will be those who decide the costs are too high and fire workers?


    The supply of labor doesn't need a lower minimum wage to increase it currently. icon_lol.gif

    I see different levels of skills as impacting employment differently. Lower wage workers lack the skills that allow them to be more in demand, and thus in a recession, they are the first to suffer. Ask any newly graduated dentist or doctor currently looking for a job--yes, it's harder, but you can still get a job, much more readily than minimum wage workers. Therefore I do not see so much minimum wage being the big determinant in employment rates; rather it's the recession that is decreasing demand and thus employment.

    And BTW, will you please quote the whole statement for your thread's title, which includes the subject "jobs affected by the federal minimum wage" rather than just "minimum wage."icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 1:08 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    The idea behind not having a minimum wage that most people argue for is to increase both the supply of labor and also the demand for it. If workers are hired relative to their productivity, which I do believe, then the ones that are already at the higher wages are able to justify them. Where you get the increased employment is not in the increased profitability from a firm that cuts wages but from the businesses that are able to hire entry level unskilled workers for work that otherwise not be done.

    If you accept these are two different issues, I wonder if you happen to provide further detail on how it is the recession that has caused the unemployment. Do you accept the argument though that the consequences of minimum wage at a firm level are not necessarily the increase of wages but also at least in part (we can disagree on the percentage), there will be those who decide the costs are too high and fire workers?


    The supply of labor doesn't need a lower minimum wage to increase it currently. icon_lol.gif

    I see different levels of skills as impacting employment differently. Lower wage workers lack the skills that allow them to be more in demand, and thus in a recession, they are the first to suffer. Ask any newly graduated dentist or doctor currently looking for a job--yes, it's harder, but you can still get a job, much more readily than minimum wage workers. Therefore I do not see so much minimum wage being the big determinant in employment rates; rather it's the recession that is decreasing demand and thus employment.

    And BTW, will you please quote the whole statement for your thread's title, which includes the subject "jobs affected by the federal minimum wage" rather than just "minimum wage."icon_lol.gif


    Fine, for you q, icon_wink.gif .

    I see the recession as being part of a plausible reason for the reduction in unskilled jobs but I think it's one factor. Would you acknowledge though that you can at least see scenarios where an increased minimum wage results not in higher wages for an individual but rather as a factor for unemployment? A corollary being that there are those who are not hired because the now higher costs of minimum wage don't cover the anticipated returns of the labor?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 1:52 AM GMT
    Riddler, go get a job and work for a month at 5 dollars an hour. Go tell the Republicans to give welfare to more people who are working. Go tell some wealthy conservatives in the US to pay more taxes for your scheme to work. The extra welfare money will have to come from somewhere.

    THEN, get back to us. Without a, minimum wage, many businesses will take full advantage of this corporate welfare and pay thieer workers 10 cents an hour and expect welfare to make the difference. Welfare they will not be contributing to as their tax rates are being LOWERED to attract them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2011 2:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TrentGrad saidLook guys, don't humour riddler here...this is clearly a troll thread!


    .... says the guy with no pics at all in his profile... not even the usual headless torso shot!



    ....says the guy with the pic that shows him permanently asleep. Tell us, are you driving in that pic?