While I can sympathize with someone trying to make ends meet at such a low salary, what what if she's one of the 1.4 million people that the CBO estimates will lose their job?
Here's more from Bob Murphy. I suggest reading the whole article, but here's his commentary on how agressive the plan is:
According to fans of the minimum wage hike, namely the progressive Economic Policy Institute in a 2019 analysis, the $15 floor would directly raise the pay of 28.1 million workers who currently earn less than $15/hour. (In addition, the EPI estimated that 11.6 million workers earn more than $15 but would still see a pay hike as employers tried to distinguish their pay from the new minimum wage.) The 28.1 million workers represent about 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce.
In contrast, the previous round of minimum wage hikes was phased in starting in 2007, when the minimum wage was gradually raised (over two years) from $5.15 to $7.25. Another EPI study at that time praised the legislation, estimating that it would directly benefit only 5.6 million workers, which at the time was a mere 4 percent of the wage-earning workforce. Notice the huge contrast: the previous minimum wage hike only (directly) affected 4 percent of workers, but the current proposal would affect 19 percent.
Another way of assessing the aggressiveness of the current plan is to note that, even adjusting for price inflation, it would put the “real” minimum wage at the highest level in US history.
wtf is wrong with these people? The current minimum wage is a slave wage. If raising it were to increase unemployment - hardly a sure thing - then there are other tools that can be used to increase employment.
Anyone arguing against raising the minimum wage is a real sick puppy.
More than doubling the minimum wage increasing unemployment is a sure thing. Tell me about how you are going to engineer the economy to full employment after doubling the minimum wage. Why haven't we done it already?
Please provide your step by step plan.
before the pandemic hit, we were at below 4% unemployment, several points below what most economists considered full employment.
Next question?
ps.it ain't no sure thing
So, raise the minimum wage then elect Donald Trump is your plan. Got it.
as if Trump had anythinggood to do with the economy. Using one of your tropes, imagine what the economy might have done if it hadn't had to deal with his tariffs, for example.
You should go for $1,000,000,000 an hour. We'll all be rich!
A country where someone working the minimum wage cannot afford to live is not a country. It is a joke. So if you want to raise to a billion an hour, I am with you. But sadly you are just full of ****.
elsewhere in this thread the same analysis used to estimate job losses due to a $15 minimum wage also estimated that an equal number of families would be lifted out of poverty. And just above there was an estimate of 28 million people getting pay raises. And earlier estimates quoted in this thread showed that a significant number of the job losses will be among teens. So I just don't find it a compelling argument that the minimum wage can't or shouldn't be raised because 1 million+ people will lose crap minimum wage jobs (many of them teens), and thus denying over a million families the opportunity to escape poverty and tens of millions of others to see their wages raised. If we care so much about those who lose jobs, we could include enhanced unemployment benefits in the legislation. Perhaps for a year to anyone who loses a minimum wage job due to the raise in the hourly rate.
this argument would pretty much be the definition of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good if the people making it were pushing for perfection. But in this case it's letting the crap present circumstance be the enemy of a somewhat less crap future circumstance.
What was the unemployment rate immediately after the abolition of slavery?
Before Kings closed their was a guy whose job seemed to be rounding up and returning shopping carts left around the area. He appeared to be mentally challenged, if that is the right term, but was able to have a job. What is the appropriate hourly wage for someone of his skill level? Should it not be high enough for such a person to pay rent and buy food and other necessities?
I'm pretty much on the same page as ml1 here. The CBO estimate is a pretty conservative one -- not in the political sense, but as in the assumptions it makes around economic growth and job losses -- and so is something a reasonable "worst case" estimate. I don't have a problem with that; in economic matters, I generally prefer using more conservative estimates to set the baseline expectations lower, as opposed to, for instance, the kind of overly optimistic estimates around economic growth that tend to get thrown out to justify tax cuts. Better to assume a worse outcome and be pleasantly surprised than the opposite.
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
Two cautionary notes: The 1.3 million job losses were the median estimate, so “probably less than that” is probably a step too far.
More important, I think, is that the CBO study was released in July 2019. The pandemic has damaged businesses in ways that make even good jobs more vulnerable than they were a year and a half ago.
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
Two cautionary notes: The 1.3 million job losses were the median estimate, so “probably less than that” is probably a step too far.
More important, I think, is that the CBO study was released in July 2019. The pandemic has damaged businesses in ways that make even good jobs more vulnerable than they were a year and a half ago.
Those are good caveats.
I think my larger point remains valid though -- if opponents of the minimum wage are effectively saying we're going to lose a lot of jobs that can't sustain a living, it seems to me a focus on "saving" those jobs is misplaced.
The kind of counter-argument I'd be open to would be one that proposed a realistic path up from these terrible jobs into real ones -- one where a low paying job was truly just a temporary stepping stone. That doesn't seem like the economy we live in, though, hence my preference to mandate that anyone working at minimum earns enough to support themselves and have a shot at economic advancement.
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
Two cautionary notes: The 1.3 million job losses were the median estimate, so “probably less than that” is probably a step too far.
More important, I think, is that the CBO study was released in July 2019. The pandemic has damaged businesses in ways that make even good jobs more vulnerable than they were a year and a half ago.
it's been predicted by many economists that the end of the pandemic will release pent up demand for all sorts of goods and services. Couldn't it be argued that it's a better time to introduce a higher minimum wage as businesses bring back workers and new businesses start up, than later down the road as these businesses proceed under a business model that includes paying lower wages?
and if the country ends up in a years-long pandemic-caused economic downturn, we've got much bigger problems than the minimum wage. If necessary, legislation could be passed to delay implementation of the higher minimum wage if circumstances warrant.
it's been predicted by many economists that the end of the pandemic will release pent up demand for all sorts of goods and services. Couldn't it be argued that it's a better time to introduce a higher minimum wage as businesses bring back workers and new businesses start up, than later down the road as these businesses proceed under a business model that includes paying lower wages?
Sure it could be argued. My intent was to raise a couple of specific caveats for PVW to consider, which he addressed.
A country where someone working the minimum wage cannot afford to live is not a country. It is a joke. So if you want to raise to a billion an hour, I am with you. But sadly you are just full of ****.
He was born in 1960. Let’s assume he went to college in 1978, tuition didn’t increase during his time, and the value of the minimum wage remained steady. Adjusted for inflation, his tuition was $3,600/year and the minimum wage was $13.44 an hour. https://t.co/cTqAIyFed6
He was born in 1960. Let’s assume he went to college in 1978, tuition didn’t increase during his time, and the value of the minimum wage remained steady. Adjusted for inflation, his tuition was $3,600/year and the minimum wage was $13.44 an hour. https://t.co/cTqAIyFed6
I'm pretty much on the same page as ml1 here. The CBO estimate is a pretty conservative one -- not in the political sense, but as in the assumptions it makes around economic growth and job losses -- and so is something a reasonable "worst case" estimate. I don't have a problem with that; in economic matters, I generally prefer using more conservative estimates to set the baseline expectations lower, as opposed to, for instance, the kind of overly optimistic estimates around economic growth that tend to get thrown out to justify tax cuts. Better to assume a worse outcome and be pleasantly surprised than the opposite.
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
You are playing with people's lives. Again, not every job is meant to have for 40 years and to raise a family of 4. Work is not only about your current wage. It is also about skill acquisition.
In many cases what you are asking for is a failure to launch. And that is based on the extremely dubious assumption that you are right about the numbers.
You should go for $1,000,000,000 an hour. We'll all be rich!
A country where someone working the minimum wage cannot afford to live is not a country. It is a joke. So if you want to raise to a billion an hour, I am with you. But sadly you are just full of ****.
So, every country in the history of man is a joke. Even the dystopias that were the embodiment of your ideals.
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
Remember when those same economists said that housing prices never go down. Good times...
elsewhere in this thread the same analysis used to estimate job losses due to a $15 minimum wage also estimated that an equal number of families would be lifted out of poverty. And just above there was an estimate of 28 million people getting pay raises. And earlier estimates quoted in this thread showed that a significant number of the job losses will be among teens. So I just don't find it a compelling argument that the minimum wage can't or shouldn't be raised because 1 million+ people will lose crap minimum wage jobs (many of them teens), and thus denying over a million families the opportunity to escape poverty and tens of millions of others to see their wages raised. If we care so much about those who lose jobs, we could include enhanced unemployment benefits in the legislation. Perhaps for a year to anyone who loses a minimum wage job due to the raise in the hourly rate.
this argument would pretty much be the definition of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good if the people making it were pushing for perfection. But in this case it's letting the crap present circumstance be the enemy of a somewhat less crap future circumstance.
You think too small. $100 an hour gets everyone to upper middle class.
Edited to add regarding commentary that a known side effect of subsidies is you get more of it. So, you want to put an artificial price floor which will create unemployment and then furthermore you would like to subsidize the unemployment. What could possibly go wrong?
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
Remember when those same economists said that housing prices never go down. Good times...
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
Remember when those same economists said that housing prices never go down. Good times...
oh, that claim requires a cite.
You didn't live through the housing bubble? It was a common refrain and I believe many of the investment vehicles basically assumed housing would not decline at the national level.
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
Remember when those same economists said that housing prices never go down. Good times...
oh, that claim requires a cite.
You didn't live through the housing bubble? It was a common refrain and I believe many of the investment vehicles basically assumed housing would not decline at the national level.
I don't consider people working for investment houses "economists". They're paid shills. And Greenspan is, well, he's Greenspan.
The economists I listened to at the time, like Dean Baker, had been warning about the bubble for years.
Anyway, good to know that you now realize that it was the crash of the housing bubble that caused the 2008 crisis, and not the evil holders of sub-prime mortgages. So that's progress.
I don't consider people working for investment houses "economists". They're paid shills. And Greenspan is, well, he's Greenspan.
The economists I listened to at the time, like Dean Baker, had been warning about the bubble for years.
Anyway, good to know that you now realize that it was the crash of the housing bubble that caused the 2008 crisis, and not the evil holders of sub-prime mortgages. So that's progress.
I don't remember Dean Baker calling that one. You should provide a reference. I was getting killed on this board before the crisis for saying housing prices would fall precipitously. I actually got banned because I posted that Peter Schiff speech in front of the mortgage bankers association where he told them it was all going to crash and burn. Dave then went and tried to dig up dirt on him and I got banned in the back & forth. I don't remember having a ton of support in those discussions.
I never blamed the holders of sub-prime mortgages. I blamed the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Government for creating the mania. Who can forget this doozy from Krugman?
I'm pretty much on the same page as ml1 here. The CBO estimate is a pretty conservative one -- not in the political sense, but as in the assumptions it makes around economic growth and job losses -- and so is something a reasonable "worst case" estimate. I don't have a problem with that; in economic matters, I generally prefer using more conservative estimates to set the baseline expectations lower, as opposed to, for instance, the kind of overly optimistic estimates around economic growth that tend to get thrown out to justify tax cuts. Better to assume a worse outcome and be pleasantly surprised than the opposite.
So we're looking at 1.4 million lost jobs, but probably less than that. And half of those aren't permanent losses. So another way of saying this is that our economy has 700,000 jobs that don't allow people to actually earn a living. And my question is, why on earth would we want to save those jobs? Surely the question should be "how do we eliminate these bad jobs and make sure anyone stuck in them gets out" rather than worrying about losing such useless jobs?
You are playing with people's lives. Again, not every job is meant to have for 40 years and to raise a family of 4. Work is not only about your current wage. It is also about skill acquisition.
In many cases what you are asking for is a failure to launch. And that is based on the extremely dubious assumption that you are right about the numbers.
Well its true I can't know the future, but that's true for you as well, so we're equally open to the charge of "playing with people's lives" and dubious assumptions on being right about the numbers, aren't we?
As for your other point, I'll just re-quote myself here:
"The kind of counter-argument I'd be open to would be one that proposed a realistic path up from these terrible jobs into real ones -- one where a low paying job was truly just a temporary stepping stone. That doesn't seem like the economy we live in, though, hence my preference to mandate that anyone working at minimum earns enough to support themselves and have a shot at economic advancement."
Also, I'm pretty bullish on the prospects of the post-covid economy. I think there's a lot of pent up demand that's going to be unleashed, and while unfortunately plenty of individual businesses may have a hard time recovering from the pandemic's damages, there will be on net many new businesses and jobs available going forward.
Remember when those same economists said that housing prices never go down. Good times...
?
I didn't quote any economists, or talk about housing prices. I guess you're saying you're pessimistic and think we're on the brink of a damaging deflationary episode?
Nobody thought that housing prices couldn't go down.
What some did think was that through securitization of bundles of mortgages, the risks of some property values going down could be reduced. The problem was, that affected how the mortgages were approved/entered into. It wasn't any fault of the United States government that these mortgages were granted. And then as other financial instruments were invented, building on top of those collateralized instruments (insufficiently regulated - that was a problem), there was the massive impact when a small "collapse" rippled through the system.
[Edited to add] I should clarify that "nobody thought that housing prices couldn't go down" refers to economists and other observers who were looking at the market as a whole. I know that individual purchasers usually assume that the value of their house will not go down.
So, raise the minimum wage then elect Donald Trump is your plan. Got it.