Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[garbon]

And that is what the Tamas/garbon argument seems to be suggesting.

Which it isn't.

[Berkut]

And that is what the Tamas/garbon argument seems to be suggesting.

Which it isn't.

OK, but it sure as hell looks that way to me.

Otherwise, how is noting that raising minimum wage as a response to the observation that one way of increasing the wealth of the poor would to, you know, PAY THEM MORE, might increase the cost of housing responsive to the entire point of the discussion?

What IS the point of that observation, if it is NOT an argument against giving the poor a few more scraps? What is the point of the response?

I am genuinely at a loss here, and in the unenviable position of defending an economic position put forth by the local commie. Help me out.

[garbon]

Help me out.

Nah, how about you drown?

[CountDeMoney]

I am genuinely at a loss here, and in the unenviable position of defending an economic position put forth by the local commie. Help me out.

[Jacob]

So garbon and Tamas, do you have any other suggestions for how to raise the share of income of the bottom 50% in the US to bring it more in line with, say, France (the other country mentioned in the article) if you think raising the minimum wage is not going to work?

Because self-evidently from the data it is possible for income inequality to be less than it is in the US. If you reject increases in the minimum wage, what do you think will work?

[Jacob]

I wonder how the graphs would look if the groups that seem to wallow their whole lives in poverty stricken cesspools were omitted (white trash, etc.)

Why would you omit them?

to see how the average incomes look after you remove maybe 20% of the bottom 50%. certain groups seem like they're going to remain in abject poverty and have no interest rising above it or moving. at least the ghettos are a few blocks from wealth.

So you start with "for a bunch of them it's their own fault, so it's not a problem we should bother with" and wonder if we ignore them - which is reasonable because they only have themselves to blame - then we might find it's not so bad?

[CountDeMoney]

to see how the average incomes look after you remove maybe 20% of the bottom 50%. certain groups seem like they're going to remain in abject poverty and have no interest rising above it or moving. at least the ghettos are a few blocks from wealth.

So you start with "for a bunch of them it's their own fault, so it's not a problem we should bother with" and wonder if we ignore them - which is reasonable because they only have themselves to blame - then we might find it's not so bad?

Not only do the poor not make enough money, they're not even interested in rising above it or *gasp* moving.

Stupid poors, choosing poverty.

[Tamas]

An across-the-board minimum wage increase will not help anyone. On the short term it helps maybe those on minimum wage at the time, but nobody else. Then things would just start costing more and they would be back where they started, except small business would have a harder time to (legally) afford unskilled labour.

I know its not a valid example because it's just a bunch of unwashed untermensch, but in Hungary the minimum wage has been on a steady rise, with the occasional huge bumps up, since the mid 90s, and nowadays poverty is not declining, it's on the rise, due to a myriad of failed/malicious economic policies, yes, but the point is minimum wage did fuckall to counter that.


I think one of the problems here is that those who support minimum wage raises only see it from the end point of the people earning it. Which is noble, but that money is actually being paid by someone. And yes, big corporations would have no trouble paying a bit more. Except in those cases when you push it high enoug so they can just move operations to China/Mexico/Romania.

But the economy is not solely built of evil megacorporations hoarding vast amounts of wealths they do nothing with. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the more entry level jobs with small businesses you prevent/shut down, because the business owner would not be able to see as much value from the employee's work as he/she would cost.

My problem is that those who support minimum wage raises often sound like its some kind of magic wand that's once waved, economic troubles and poverty go away. This is a damaging and counterproductive stance.

[Berkut]

An across-the-board minimum wage increase will not help anyone. On the short term it helps maybe those on minimum wage at the time, but nobody else. Then things would just start costing more and they would be back where they started, except small business would have a harder time to (legally) afford unskilled labour.

There is so much wrong with this I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your statement. It is self contradictory in the first two sentences.

It won't help anyone. - Sentence 1.

It will help in the short term - Sentence 2.

There are good arguments for and against minimum wage, what it ought to be set at, how that is determined, etc., etc. But they cannot start with such obvious...dogma.

[Berkut]

My problem is that those who support minimum wage raises often sound like its some kind of magic wand that's once waved, economic troubles and poverty go away.

Can you find someone - anyone - who makes such a patently stupid claim?

This is a damaging and counterproductive stance.

What is counter productive is arguing against positions that are self evidently idiotic and then hoping nobody notices.

[Tamas]

An across-the-board minimum wage increase will not help anyone. On the short term it helps maybe those on minimum wage at the time, but nobody else. Then things would just start costing more and they would be back where they started, except small business would have a harder time to (legally) afford unskilled labour.

There is so much wrong with this I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your statement. It is self contradictory in the first two sentences.

It won't help anyone. - Sentence 1.

It will help in the short term - Sentence 2.

There are good arguments for and against minimum wage, what it ought to be set at, how that is determined, etc., etc. But they cannot start with such obvious...dogma.

Ok then!

[Valmy]

An across-the-board minimum wage increase will not help anyone. On the short term it helps maybe those on minimum wage at the time, but nobody else. Then things would just start costing more and they would be back where they started, except small business would have a harder time to (legally) afford unskilled labour.

Well it might be nice if government benefits went to unemployed people and we didn't have to spend our tax dollars to subsidize gainfully employed people. That might be beneficial.

I mean we are talking about peanuts here. Would such a tiny increase in really low wages really have such enormous economic impact? I mean what products actually have their prices so directly tied to the minimum wage?

[Tamas]

I guess it also depends on how much proportion of the workforce is on minimum wage, and how much you are raising it.

However, the inflation aspect aside, the problem is, you can't raise the value of one's work by law. You can raise the minimum amount one must pay to get the benefit of someone's labour, and you may very well do that to such a limited degree that no significant amount of minimum-earners will lose their job, but you are with every increase, increase the barrier that's in front of unemployed people who can't enter the economy on account of them not being able to produce the value of their would-be salary.
And as subset of that, you just make it that much harder to enter the working world, period. You end up having to allow apprenticeships contracts and the like, and then get what you have in the UK, all the problems with that.

[CountDeMoney]

I mean we are talking about peanuts here. Would such a tiny increase in really low wages really have such enormous economic impact? I mean what products actually have their prices so directly tied to the minimum wage?

See, that's the Big Lie in this day and age;  labor is tied to something like 3-5% of total costs in manufacturing, but an unsustainable and out-of-control corporate governance/shareholder model needs to soak as much of it away as possible;  it's market exposure and market share that drives profitability, not labor.  But it's a convenient excuse.

[Valmy]

However, the inflation aspect aside, the problem is, you can't raise the value of one's work by law.

But we are already doing that. People would not be taking these jobs without the government subsidizing them, because they would be sub-subsistence wages.

You can raise the minimum amount one must pay to get the benefit of someone's labour, and you may very well do that to such a limited degree that no significant amount of minimum-earners will lose their job, but you are with every increase, increase the barrier that's in front of unemployed people who can't enter the economy on account of them not being able to produce the value of their would-be salary.

The minimum wage is lower than what it was in 1950, adjusted for inflation, so don't worry about all these supposed 'increases' going on

Labor is just as efficient now as it was in 1950 right? There has been no increase in the ability to produce more value in an hour of labor since technology has no impact on that correct?