If it gets on the ballot, I imagine that it will pass since there are a lot more people who will directly benifit (or think they will) then will be directly adversely impacted.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/01/california_minimum_wage_meet_the_libertarian_multimillionaire_who_is_pushing.html
QuoteMeet the Libertarian Who Wants to Raise the Minimum Wage
Ron Unz is making the case for California workers to earn $12 an hour.
By David Weigel
Ron Unz buried the lede. Two and a half years ago, when the Silicon Valley multimillionaire was still publisher of the American Conservative, Unz penned a characteristically sweeping piece about "Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America." Unz methodically pulled in data and anecdotes—primary vote totals, demographics, 1993 letters to the editor of Commentary—to explain why closed-border politics could not save the GOP, no matter what the right told itself. Page after page filled with ink before Unz got to his solution.
"Consider the consequences of a very substantial rise in the national minimum wage," wrote Unz, "perhaps to $10 or more likely $12 per hour." Knees would jerk, conservatives would call this socialism, but Unz knew better. When Henry Ford doubled the wages of his assembly line workers, it was "a crucial factor in creating the prosperous middle class that eventually dominated America's 20th-century history." It was time again for a wage hike, an idea that "raises the income of America's working class and similarly crosses many ideological lines."
No conservative politician joined Unz on the barricade. Two years later, he cut his ties to the magazine, looked into the mirror, and saw Henry Ford staring back. As soon as next week, California will approve the language of Unz's ballot measure to raise the minimum wage to $10, then $12. If that happens, Unz just needs to muscle enough signatures to put this on the ballot.
"I'd never really focused on the minimum wage issue, by itself, until recently," says Unz over the phone, from his home in Palo Alto. "To the extent that everyone in the economic profession was making another argument, that raising the minimum wage would kill jobs, I vaguely nodded my head."
In Unz's circles, among libertarian and conservative intellectuals and donors, almost nobody endorsed a higher minimum wage. Any fool who could draw a curve could prove that higher mandatory wages kicked low-skilled workers out of the job market and onto welfare. "The belief that increasing the minimum wage is socially beneficial is a delusion," wrote Cato Institute scholar James Dorn in a recent reading from the catechism, citing the 40 percent unemployment rate for black teens. "In 2007, prior to the Great Recession, the black teen unemployment rate was about 29 percent. There is no doubt the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour contributed to the higher unemployment rate."
This stopped being convincing to Unz, who made his fortune by designing software that allowed mortgages to be chopped up into securities, and whose IQ has clocked in at 214. "Once I started investigating the details," he says, "it really seemed like the facts were on the other side—especially since so much of the economy has shifted from manufacturing to other industries. You can always relocate manufacturing jobs. You can't ship McDonald's jobs to India or Bangladesh."
Unz was alone on this, for a while. Nothing unusual there. Journalists have been writing "Ron Unz, rebel conservative" stories for a generation, ever since his 1998 ballot measure that ended California's bilingual education. "This isn't your usual picture of a Republican millionaire on a mission," wrote the New Republic when Unz tackled campaign finance laws. "After decades in the conservative movement, Mr. Unz is pursuing a goal that has stymied liberals," wrote the New York Times two months ago. This works to Unz's advantage; "liberals continue to support higher wages" isn't much of a story, and California's 2013 passage of a phased-in $10 minimum wage law was seen on the right as the Golden State fulfilling its annual quota for kooky socialism.
What's new, and what Unz didn't expect, was a mini-surge of interest from fellow conservatives about the minimum wage. The long tail of Mitt Romney's defeat played a role in that, as conservatives struggled to explain why even voters who'd suffered in the downturn had voted for the president. The 2013 push for immigration reform played a role, too, rousing the old Buchanan-ite wing of the movement that panicked about undocumented workers flooding low-wage, low-skill jobs.
"The lowest-wage workers in America disproportionately tend to be recent immigrants," says Unz. "You look at a job that pays $7.25 an hour, you raise the value of that job to $12, and suddenly a lot of Americans would take those jobs. A lot of our illegal-immigration problems are solved—there's less incentive to violate the law and immigration rules."
But immigration was fading as a first-order political issue in Washington. Inequality was surging. President Obama floated a $10.10 minimum wage during the State of the Union, absorbed the mockery, and then turned it into the centerpiece of a populist campaign to rebuild his support.
Conservatives began to take him seriously. "Legislation to raise the minimum wage would elevate many low-wage earners above the income threshold that qualifies them for benefits," wrote conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, "and should result in reduced welfare spending." She cited a study by the Cato Institute, suggesting that welfare paid more than minimum wages in 35 states. The libertarians had accidentally made the case for the policy they despised. A week later, Bill O'Reilly was table-banging about the fairness of the $10 minimum wage. Neil Munro, the reporter who earned Internet fame for hectoring the president about immigration, interviewed Unz and predicted his idea would "catch fire."
The resistance was ready for this, but divided against itself. Reliable corporate fronts like the Employment Policies Institute attacked the wage hike, full stop, no alternatives. Conservatives who wanted to win elections dismissed it, but only as a way of supporting some other, better anti-poverty balm. "Our current president and his liberal allies propose that we address this by spending more on these failed programs and increasing the minimum wage to $10.10," said Marco Rubio in a Jan. 8 speech marking the anniversary of the War on Poverty. "Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream." Rubio, copping from conservative intellectuals like Yuval Levin, preferred an earned income tax credit that would give money directly to the poor.
"That's a terrible idea," says Unz. "It's basically a welfare program. What the government does with the EITC is make poor people somewhat less poor by putting checks in the mail. Forget all of the other problems with that—you're talking about a massive subsidy to low-wage employers. How's that going to work politically? Increasing taxes to pay increased welfare benefits—how many conservatives are going to go for that?"
In Washington? That's easy—conservatives don't need to "go for" anything. The national Republican Party is pretty confident it can win in 2014 by reminding voters that Obamacare exists. Unz is giving them a chance to endorse something else, something voters identify with liberals, and compete for working-class votes on positive terms. It's a tool, like the software he developed, the stuff that allowed quants to chop up mortgages into securities.
"Frankly, I used to always tell all my Wall Street clients that all my software did was to produce financial outputs based on the inputs they themselves provided, and I just couldn't see how anyone could ever predict the correct inputs," says Unz. "They said: Don't worry about that—we're paying millions of dollars to all these research experts to decide what the correct inputs should be. I told them I was pretty skeptical about that, but I supposed it was their business."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
who will directly benifit (or think they will) then will be directly adversely impacted.
Like the English language in your posts? You fucking fuck.
Commies.
There any other kind?
Good for them. The federal minimum wage is no living wage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
If it gets on the ballot, I imagine that it will pass since there are a lot more people who will directly benifit (or think they will) then will be directly adversely impacted.
Generally anything in California will pass on a ballot if it is giving money to a "deserving" group and the initiative makes no mention of direct costs to voters.
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 17, 2014, 09:56:47 PM
There any other kind?
My grammar is impeccable. You people can't even diagram sentences.
Quote from: KRonnToo much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
If the minwage went to $12/hr, you can bet your bippy that a lot of people, including a lot of people over twenty-five, would be affected.
Quote from: KRonn on January 17, 2014, 10:27:14 PM
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Quote from: KRonn on January 17, 2014, 10:27:14 PM
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
It's used for benchmarks, one of which is--oh, I don't know--legality.
QuoteIMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Then that would defeat the purpose of keeping wages depressed.
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 17, 2014, 10:27:14 PM
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Didn't Berkut already drive this topic into the ground?
I think the conclusion was that if all you can get is a job at McDonald's and you don't have parents, you deserve to die.
Oddly, I recall this:
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:51:59 PM
Plenty of stats out there:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm)
Note that according to these stats, I am right, and Seedy is (surprise! surprise!) full of shit.
Most people making minimum wage are doing so because they are NOT typical full time primary bread winners with their minimum wage jobs as their primary source of income.
Highlights:
- Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the federal minimum wage or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent).
- About 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers.
Most people making minimu wage (98%) are in fact part time workers. Just like I said.
This is interesting:
The proportion of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 5.2 percent in 2011 to 4.7 percent in 2012. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis.
Huh. The proportion of people earning min wage is actually going DOWN, not up.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2014, 12:23:49 AM
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 17, 2014, 10:27:14 PM
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Didn't Berkut already drive this topic into the ground?
You'll have to pardon me; I have no earthly idea.
I like statistics that use "the federal minimum wage or less," rather than the extremely common jobs that pay a buck or so above minimum wage, a phenomenon which exists in some small part, if not almost entirely, because the minwage sets an absolute minimum from which employees and employers negotiate upward. We should also completely discount the economic effect of psychology regarding that wage floor--i.e., even the shittiest employer usually doesn't want to make their employee feel like a complete worthless subhuman, and the prospective employee can be assumed to have a measure of pride, so wages directly pegged to the minimum are comparatively rare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
who will directly benifit (or think they will) then will be directly adversely impacted.
Like the English language in your posts? You fucking fuck.
I wrote then instead of than! The HORROR... :o
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
I know plenty of folks who are making minimum wage and are alive. If you're talking about enough money to support a spouse and two children, why don't we call it what it is?
Quote from: YiI know plenty of folks who are making minimum wage and are alive.
Do they either subsist on handouts or they live like subhumans? DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION ANSWER NOW.
If you're going to define subhuman as the quality of life enjoyed by a person making minimum wage, then it's a circular argument.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2014, 01:27:17 AM
I like statistics that use "the federal minimum wage or less," rather than the extremely common jobs that pay a buck or so above minimum wage, a phenomenon which exists in some small part, if not almost entirely, because the minwage sets an absolute minimum from which employees and employers negotiate upward. We should also completely discount the economic effect of psychology regarding that wage floor--i.e., even the shittiest employer usually doesn't want to make their employee feel like a complete worthless subhuman, and the prospective employee can be assumed to have a measure of pride, so wages directly pegged to the minimum are comparatively rare.
Yep. "Only x%" actually earn minimum wage is no argument. Being seen to only pay the minimum you are legally required to pay is bad PR, thus raise the minimum and a lot of low earners will see their wages go up eventualy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2014, 01:53:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2014, 09:24:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
who will directly benifit (or think they will) then will be directly adversely impacted.
Like the English language in your posts? You fucking fuck.
I wrote then instead of than! The HORROR... :o
Is Korean children learning?
Are they: benifitting from Tim's tutelage? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on January 18, 2014, 08:23:22 AM
Are they: benefiting from Tim's tutelage? :hmm:
Of the twenty contestants in the national contest in Busan, two were my students. :sleep:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2014, 08:26:46 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 18, 2014, 08:23:22 AM
Are they: benefiting from Tim's tutelage? :hmm:
Of the twenty contestants in the national contest in Busan, two were my students. :sleep:
Pride goeth before a fall.
When you talk about a Federal Minimum Wage, is that a minimum wage that all employers must pay in the US or is it just employers within operating within Federal jurisdiction?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2014, 09:37:40 AM
When you talk about a Federal Minimum Wage, is that a minimum wage that all employers must pay in the US or is it just employers within operating within Federal jurisdiction?
All US employees
that are paid on an hourly basis.
State minimum wage laws are superseded if federal minimum wage is higher, as it was in NJ until 17 days ago (NJ was 7.15, as opposed to the federal 7.25).
Also, our minimum wage is now tied to CPI-W. Whenever the CPI-W increases over a year, so does our minimum wage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2014, 04:23:42 AM
If you're going to define subhuman as the quality of life enjoyed by a person making minimum wage, then it's a circular argument.
Maybe subhuman is too loaded. Are their basic needs (e.g., shelter) critically dependent upon others (e.g., roommates)? Then that's not a living wage.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 18, 2014, 10:19:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2014, 09:37:40 AM
When you talk about a Federal Minimum Wage, is that a minimum wage that all employers must pay in the US or is it just employers within operating within Federal jurisdiction?
All US employees that are paid on an hourly basis.
Not quite true. Some small businesses are exempt.
Some states used* to allow employers to pay less than minimum wage if they earn tips, as long as the tips get them to the minimum wage level. I made $2.09/hour in a restaurant in the early '90s, which was about half of minimum wage at the time.
*They still might, not sure.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2014, 11:24:00 AM
Maybe subhuman is too loaded. Are their basic needs (e.g., shelter) critically dependent upon others (e.g., roommates)? Then that's not a living wage.
Subhuman is too loaded but living is not?
"Living wage" is obfuscation, it's doublespeak.
Quote from: sbr on January 18, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
Some states used* to allow employers to pay less than minimum wage if they earn tips, as long as the tips get them to the minimum wage level. I made $2.09/hour in a restaurant in the early '90s, which was about half of minimum wage at the time.
*They still might, not sure.
Tip credit's still a thing. Some of the NJ businesses have been griping about getting the tip credit percentage lowered since the minimum wage went up- as it stands, the minimum tip credit is $4-something right now. I've been led to believe that not paying the difference on tip credit is one of the bigger things restaurants get in trouble for.
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 17, 2014, 10:27:14 PM
Too much politics over the minimum wage. A very small percentage of people work at min wage, and only a small percentage of those are older than early twenties. Min wage is a starter wage, or for someone retired. If someone is working min wage as long term then they're doing something very wrong. Most of the companies being bashed, department stores like Wal Mart, etc, already pay over the min wage anyways. As I said, this is mainly for politics, for pols to make noise and look like they care.
IMO, the min wage should be tied to the inflation rate or cost of living and rise accordingly.
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Without getting into a debate of what is a living wage, I think that the theoretical free market rate for truly unskilled labor is less than what is needed to pay for adequate food, shelter, child and education expenses, plus other expenses to stay connected to the wider world (television, phone, I would argue computer and internet, etc).
The public policy question is how to best ensure that people can meet those needs. One way is to raise the minimum wage to a level that would allow someone on minimum wage to live a reasonably comfortable lifestyle without state support. The problem with this approach is that it results in higher unemployment, more difficulty in finding entry level jobs, and a somewhat permanent welfare state with persistent unemployed.
An alternative, which we have and I think is much better, is to set the minimum wage at a lower level, and have state support for the working poor. There is an argument that minimum wage paying employers are effectively receiving a state subsidy for their workers that would not be able to subsist on their wages without the benefit programs. I generally don't agree with that, fwiw.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2014, 11:24:00 AM
Maybe subhuman is too loaded. Are their basic needs (e.g., shelter) critically dependent upon others (e.g., roommates)? Then that's not a living wage.
Subhuman is too loaded but living is not?
"Living wage" is obfuscation, it's doublespeak.
What else do you call a wage which would permit you to live - not like a king, but just in normal housing - without *needing* either a second income, roommates, or lots of government assistance?
"Enough money to live on your own."
Or we could just cut through the fog and call it $20,800. Everyone knows what that means.
The Yi types think living in a cardboard box or a shelter is "living on your own", too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2014, 09:26:39 PM
"Enough money to live on your own."
You say potato, I say living wage.
Potato has the advantage of being honest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Potato has the advantage of being honest.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FMY_031c23_775609.jpg&hash=461007b299f9e65f8398c16f3c5d6a627cff3c79)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2014, 09:28:55 PM
The Yi types think living in a cardboard box or a shelter is "living on your own", too.
Still has the free rider problem. All cardboard boxes should be incinerated after use so as not disincentive people into working for enough money for shanties.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Potato has the advantage of being honest.
Both are honest, so long as we understand what they mean.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2014, 05:00:23 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2014, 01:27:17 AM
I like statistics that use "the federal minimum wage or less," rather than the extremely common jobs that pay a buck or so above minimum wage, a phenomenon which exists in some small part, if not almost entirely, because the minwage sets an absolute minimum from which employees and employers negotiate upward. We should also completely discount the economic effect of psychology regarding that wage floor--i.e., even the shittiest employer usually doesn't want to make their employee feel like a complete worthless subhuman, and the prospective employee can be assumed to have a measure of pride, so wages directly pegged to the minimum are comparatively rare.
Yep. "Only x%" actually earn minimum wage is no argument. Being seen to only pay the minimum you are legally required to pay is bad PR, thus raise the minimum and a lot of low earners will see their wages go up eventualy.
Christ, so you guys bitch and bitch and bitch about minimum wage, and then someone actually shows actual data that completely crushes your arguments about minimum wage, so the response is to claim that people don't really pay the minimum wage, so all your argument now apply to people making minimum + $.01/hour?
Which, of course, is safely impossible to quantify. And if someone did, and scuppered THAT argument with actual data, you would just move the bar to minimum +$.02/hour.
This is faith based thinking. The data must be ignored if it doesn't support your conclusion.
Berk: if the notion is to raise the minwage to $10 (or $12) an hour, then the statistics that matter are "jobs that pay lower than $10 (or $12) an hour." If you don't believe that is the case, I believe the onus is on you to explain why that is.
Anyway, I think it'd be a positive development if the new floor from which people may negotiate upward and only upward were in fact a floor and not a parent's basement. Certainly you would see less negotiation. But that is A-OK.
Berkut's projecting again. He's having a crisis of faith on free market fundamentalism.
I do kind of wonder what the lowest wages paid would be if there was no minimum wage.
Oh, and someone tell Berkut to clean up the the pictures of dicks that grallon posted in the Skyrim thread in the game forum. He's the mod there right? He won't listen to me, but someone should get his attention on that.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Berk: if the notion is to raise the minwage to $10 (or $12) an hour, then the statistics that matter are "jobs that pay lower than $10 (or $12) an hour." If you don't believe that is the case, I believe the onus is on you to explain why that is.
Anyway, I think it'd be a positive development if the new floor from which people may negotiate upward and only upward were in fact a floor and not a parent's basement. Certainly you would see less negotiation. But that is A-OK.
Apparently people were not very good negotiators back in 1979.
What's the legal basis for a federal minimum wage?
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 04:18:09 AM
What's the legal basis for a federal minimum wage?
Seriously? The commerce clause of the constitution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2014, 04:03:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Berk: if the notion is to raise the minwage to $10 (or $12) an hour, then the statistics that matter are "jobs that pay lower than $10 (or $12) an hour." If you don't believe that is the case, I believe the onus is on you to explain why that is.
Anyway, I think it'd be a positive development if the new floor from which people may negotiate upward and only upward were in fact a floor and not a parent's basement. Certainly you would see less negotiation. But that is A-OK.
Apparently people were not very good negotiators back in 1979.
Elaborate?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 05:22:59 AM
Elaborate?
Well, the subtext of your previous posts is the Big Labor view of wages: wages are a function of how nice employers are, and since they're generally not very nice, employees have to force wage increases from them, either through the power of collective bargaining(tm) or through legislative means.
The other subtext in relation to Throbby's factoid about the shrinking percentage of the workforce earning the minimum wage is that any data that undercuts your paradigm must be impeached. If the % of workers at min wage has been dramatically shrinking over time, maybe employers are not such dickheads after all.
The fact you failed to consider when you panicked over that factoid is that the min wage in real terms has been shrinking over time frame, so it makes sense that a smaller % of the workforce is being paid that amount. So it's not actually all that terrible a data point for you.
That being said, it also demonstrates that wages are not a function of employer shittiness and labor power. Else, we should expect more or less the same % of workers earning min wage now as did back in 1979, no? So the natural conclusion is that wages are in fact determined by the interplay of supply and demand, demand being a function of marginal labor product.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 05:22:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 04:18:09 AM
What's the legal basis for a federal minimum wage?
Seriously? The commerce clause of the constitution.
Interstate commerce?
Brain supports States' Rights.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2014, 09:41:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 06:03:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 05:22:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 04:18:09 AM
What's the legal basis for a federal minimum wage?
Seriously? The commerce clause of the constitution.
Interstate commerce?
Uhm, yeah? What exactly are you asking?
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
It seems the numbers in Canada are similar to the numbers Berkut found for the US. The report is from 2010 from data pulled from 2009. The report concludes that the majority of people paid minimum wage are under 24 and if you look at chart 3 most are under 19. Most of the people under 24, and especially under 19, who are paid a minimum wage are going to school.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2009-eng.htm
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 10:08:38 AM
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. This in effect allows the federal government to regulate all commerce in the US and pretty much all aspects of commerce. "Commerce" is equated with economic activity which wages fall under.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2014, 10:22:08 AM
It seems the numbers in Canada are similar to the numbers Berkut found for the US. The report is from 2010 from data pulled from 2009. The report concludes that the majority of people paid minimum wage are under 24 and if you look at chart 3 most are under 19. Most of the people under 24, and especially under 19, who are paid a minimum wage are going to school.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2009-eng.htm
Minimum wage data is totally not relevant to discussions about minimum wage jobs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2014, 05:47:40 AM
The other subtext in relation to Throbby's factoid about the shrinking percentage of the workforce earning the minimum wage is that any data that undercuts your paradigm must be impeached. If the % of workers at min wage has been dramatically shrinking over time, maybe employers are not such dickheads after all.
Why is it an either or? Surely the employers can be dickheads while a shrinking percentage of the workforce earns the minimum wage?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 10:08:38 AM
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. This in effect allows the federal government to regulate all commerce in the US and pretty much all aspects of commerce. "Commerce" is equated with economic activity which wages fall under.
I don't have a problem with "commerce". What I find a bit odd here is "interstate commerce".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2014, 05:47:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 05:22:59 AM
Elaborate?
Well, the subtext of your previous posts is the Big Labor view of wages: wages are a function of how nice employers are, and since they're generally not very nice, employees have to force wage increases from them, either through the power of collective bargaining(tm) or through legislative means.
The other subtext in relation to Throbby's factoid about the shrinking percentage of the workforce earning the minimum wage is that any data that undercuts your paradigm must be impeached. If the % of workers at min wage has been dramatically shrinking over time, maybe employers are not such dickheads after all.
The fact you failed to consider when you panicked over that factoid is that the min wage in real terms has been shrinking over time frame, so it makes sense that a smaller % of the workforce is being paid that amount. So it's not actually all that terrible a data point for you.
That being said, it also demonstrates that wages are not a function of employer shittiness and labor power. Else, we should expect more or less the same % of workers earning min wage now as did back in 1979, no? So the natural conclusion is that wages are in fact determined by the interplay of supply and demand, demand being a function of marginal labor product.
"Supply and demand" is exactly coextensive with "employer shittiness and labor power." Supply = employer shittiness and demand = labor power.
I was simply pointing out that there are reasons beyond pure numbers--I refuse to say non-economic reasons, as everything is economic--that lift even the lowest-wage positions slightly off the floor set by the wage.
I also agree that the wage, being as low as it is, has been outpaced by pure numbers.
I simply had two points: 1)there are psychological-economic reasons why people tend not to be paid exactly at any given wage floor; and
2)I don't see how anyone can say "no one earns the minwage" and consider that a very important fact when the discussion by its definition encompasses low wage jobs that pay 40% above the current minwage, which are hugely--hugely--more common than those rare, exactly-$7.25/hr gigs.
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2014, 01:27:58 PM
Why is it an either or? Surely the employers can be dickheads while a shrinking percentage of the workforce earns the minimum wage?
You're right. What I should have said is that any dickishness is irrelevant.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 10:08:38 AM
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. This in effect allows the federal government to regulate all commerce in the US and pretty much all aspects of commerce. "Commerce" is equated with economic activity which wages fall under.
I don't have a problem with "commerce". What I find a bit odd here is "interstate commerce".
Goes between different US states. That's what allows the feds to get their foot in the door. If it was just intrastate commerce it fall under the powers of the states themselves. Since a businesses tend to operate over state lines and do business with people outside the state it all falls under the interstate commerce.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 10:08:38 AM
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. This in effect allows the federal government to regulate all commerce in the US and pretty much all aspects of commerce. "Commerce" is equated with economic activity which wages fall under.
I don't have a problem with "commerce". What I find a bit odd here is "interstate commerce".
Goes between different US states. That's what allows the feds to get their foot in the door. If it was just intrastate commerce it fall under the powers of the states themselves. Since a businesses tend to operate over state lines and do business with people outside the state it all falls under the interstate commerce.
Looks odd to an outsider. How many burgers are flipped across state lines? Rhetorical.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 02:10:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 10:08:38 AM
It's not obvious how a general wage floor is a matter of interstate commerce.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. This in effect allows the federal government to regulate all commerce in the US and pretty much all aspects of commerce. "Commerce" is equated with economic activity which wages fall under.
I don't have a problem with "commerce". What I find a bit odd here is "interstate commerce".
Goes between different US states. That's what allows the feds to get their foot in the door. If it was just intrastate commerce it fall under the powers of the states themselves. Since a businesses tend to operate over state lines and do business with people outside the state it all falls under the interstate commerce.
Looks odd to an outsider. How many burgers are flipped across state lines? Rhetorical.
The guy flipping the burger is in one state and the guy who pays him is in another*.
No not the customer, the owner of the business. :P
Basically all commerce is interstate commerce. I forget the term of art, but commerce that may appear local at first blush impacts commerce on an interstate scale.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 01:55:49 PM
"Supply and demand" is exactly coextensive with "employer shittiness and labor power." Supply = employer shittiness and demand = labor power.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
In a more negative vein basically the same as you: dickishness is irrelevant.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.motinetwork.net%2Fmotifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F1311%2Fprice-tattoo-about-200-bucksplus-any-future-earningsover-min-demotivational-posters-1383966893.jpg&hash=9455c200672de948645be8b1c3df8f76558edc42)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkhanneasuntzu.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Famerica-demotivational-poster-12207252921.jpg&hash=22ef08d38819403ad7da8119c134920caa2145cf)
Why can't Americans be both stupid and patriotic?
Quote from: Siege on January 20, 2014, 02:42:42 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.motinetwork.net%2Fmotifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F1311%2Fprice-tattoo-about-200-bucksplus-any-future-earningsover-min-demotivational-posters-1383966893.jpg&hash=9455c200672de948645be8b1c3df8f76558edc42)
True. They are a turnoff.
That's not true. There's good money in porn.
Yeah, but even porn stars usually don't have face tattoos.
And since porn doesn't even pay minimum wage anyway, this discussion is moot.
Yes, she can be original.
Guys only have rock star & tattoo artists as option.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2014, 10:03:04 AM
Guys only have rock star
If she joined Kiss, she would only have to spend half as much time getting makeup applied before the show! :D
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Do you think that every job should be paid a "living wage" (i.e. $42,000 living wage / 2080 work-hours per year) = $20.20/hour?
I think that I should be paid $42,000 per hour.
ugh.
It's a living wage.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2014, 04:50:45 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 17, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Do you think the minimum wage, even as a starter wage, is a living wage?
Do you think that every job should be paid a "living wage" (i.e. $42,000 living wage / 2080 work-hours per year) = $20.20/hour?
For a high school kid working in fast food for weekend spending money, that's a lot of drugs.
I heard Urkel's gonna announce tonight that he's raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to a little over $10 to push Congress to follow suit and increase it across the board.
I have a hard time believing there are currently federal contractors making less than 10 clams an hour.
That won't have much effect. Most federal jobs are already at least that much. Even contracted ones. They dictate what the pay should be when dispensing the contracts.
Edit: Well there you go, Yi. :P
Hope it passes in California. I think the $15 is too high but raising it to $10 and eventually to $12 would be good.
QuoteI have a hard time believing there are currently federal contractors making less than 10 clams an hour.
Does that include the people who clean government buildings?
I think minimum wage is a perfect type of policy for states to do as they wish.
Oregon wants to raise it $20? Fill those goddamn boots! Alabama wants to abolish it? Why the fuck not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 04:28:06 PM
Hope it passes in California. I think the $15 is too high but raising it to $10 and eventually to $12 would be good.
What is the thinking that makes one too hot and one just right?
QuoteDoes that include the people who clean government buildings?
Surely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
I have a hard time believing there are currently federal contractors making less than 10 clams an hour.
That was my first thought. I guess it's a symbolic move. I'm expecting him to announce a buttload of other executive orders, though.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 04:37:14 PM
I guess it's a symbolic move.
Yes, that's what it is. He's trying to be out in front as an example on the issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 04:29:36 PMWhat is the thinking that makes one too hot and one just right?
No real reason. I don't have any stats for it, though I think I read that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it'd be around $10 which sounds about right. The campaign for a $15 living wage is doubling it which is too rich for my blood.
I've no issue with a living wage - I think the idea that what people mean is that it covers raising children or 'educational expenses' is absurd. It reminds me of the Tory councillor who thought that £100k was a standard middle class wage. Lots of solidly middle class people struggle with that. A living wage should cover rent, transport and subsistence expenses and it should be higher than what you would get on unemployment benefits.
I generally support the UK living wage proposal (which is voluntarily paid by many major companies and governments) which is to raise the minimum wage from £6.31 an hour to £7.65 and £8.80 in London. Those figures are calculated by thinktanks and, in London, the council based on actual statistics. $15 sounds like it was picked because it's a nice number. Personally I also think there should still be different rates for teenagers.
Also from a British perspective the number of workers on the minimum wage has been increasing since it was introduced. I also think prosecuting businesses who pay under the minimum wage would have more effect on immigration than most of the stunts the parties are announcing.
QuoteSurely.
Okay so I'd guess over all Federal buildings there'll be at least a few thousand who'll benefit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 04:40:33 PM
Yes, that's what it is. He's trying to be out in front as an example on the issue.
Maybe. I think you count the outsourced cleaners, janitors, kitchen staff and all the rest in all the offices and canteens within the Federal government and you've probably got a fair few people who will benefit.
This was something that I think caught out Gordon Brown actually. He boasted that the government was going to use the living wage but it turned out it hadn't included the contracts with cleaning companies etc. Now I think central government does and many local councils do too.
I expect those folks are already making at least 10 Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 04:57:10 PM
I expect those folks are already making at least 10 Shelf.
Why do you guess that?
Looking at BLS statistics $10 is roughly median wage for janitors and maintenance.
'Cuz they're gov't contractors.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 05:02:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 04:57:10 PM
I expect those folks are already making at least 10 Shelf.
Why do you guess that?
Because I have experience with exactly that, and they do in fact make more than ten clams most of the time.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 05:03:58 PM
'Cuz they're gov't contractors.
So?
As I say here after the government announced they were giving their workers the living wage it was very quickly discovered that the firms they outsourced their catering staff and their cleaning to were the same large cleaning contractors used by everyone else. They were paying the same low wages as everyone else - except of course the companies who made paying the living wage a term of the contract - there was no difference working for the Treasury than, say, Barclays.
Why would it be different in the US?
I'll tell you how it works.
You are company X and you want to bid on a contract to provide cleaning services for Federal Building Y. You go through the bidding process (which is arcane and I will not waste time with that right now), and you get the contract.
In the contract, it will have provisions for the amount of the contract, the minimum amount to pay each employee, what percentage of the contract must be spent on salaries, what percent on benefits, and often percentages for other things too, like cleaning products and equipment. It is through these contract provisions that Obama would have the ability to make the mandates. That's why he specified the going forward part.
Now, I've seen a lot of contracts over the years, and I have never ever seen one that mandated less than ten bucks an hour minimum. I have seen many with minimums much higher than that. I'm sure they probably exist somewhere. But the fact that I've never seen a single one, even for jobs like dishwashers and janitors tells me that it's probably damn rare.
Okay, I take your point on your experience. But I suppose I still don't understand why the US government would be paying more than bargain rates (like every bit of the UK government) for cleaners, security guards, janitors, care workers and so on. Either your contractors or your government are strikingly generous.
but looking around online it looks like the average food service worker contract is $9.49 (which suggests there are many below that level too) and there's over 500 000 earning under $12 an hour. It seems reasonable that a proportion of them are under $10. So we could be talking tens to hundreds of thousands of people earning more and there may be a slight inflationary pressure on other low wages around $11-12 which would obviously increase the impact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
or your government are strikingly generous.
They don't call it "Uncle Sugar" for nuthin'.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 05:34:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
or your government are strikingly generous.
They don't call it "Uncle Sugar" for nuthin'.
My guess is it's generous for different contractors.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
But I suppose I still don't understand why the US government would be paying more than bargain rates
DC is an expensive market.
Spoils.
It's not their money.
Quote(like every bit of the UK government)
I recall a discussion we had a year ago about the whomping wages British trash collectors get.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 05:40:25 PM
DC is an expensive market.
Spoils.
It's not their money.
So's London - I bet you can get plenty of contracts for minimum wage cleaners in New York or wherever's most expensive in the US. If you're paying over $10 you are literally paying above the average.
The Federal government - and all the contracts from them are surely everywhere, not just DC. Every Federal office that gets cleaned or has security guards will be affected.
It is their money. If they're spending more on cleaning and office maintenance then they'll be spending less of their budget on themselves or whatever their job is.
QuoteI recall a discussion we had a year ago about the whomping wages British trash collectors get.
Yeah but that's not entirely accurate and a rather singular exception.
It's like us talking about unemployment in the US and me saying, I remember we once talked about North Dakota :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 05:54:01 PM
The Federal government - and all the contracts from them are surely everywhere, not just DC.
The vast majority of federal activity is in the DC area.
QuoteIt is their money. If they're spending more on cleaning and office maintenance then they'll be spending less of their budget on themselves or whatever their job is.
Who is your "they?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 06:25:04 PM
The vast majority of federal activity is in the DC area.
No doubt. But as I say every office, every national park, every SBA contract would be affected. It's far from just DC and that area.
QuoteWho is your "they?"
Within whichever agency you're talking about, whoever makes the decision on which contractors to use or how much of their budget to use for it.
I'm thinking it's not their call. Hopefully Mimsy can comment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 06:33:02 PM
I'm thinking it's not their call. Hopefully Mimsy can comment.
Maybe a body responsible for, say, upkeep of government premises - but again they've got to operate within their budget.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 06:36:07 PM
Maybe a body responsible for, say, upkeep of government premises - but again they've got to operate within their budget.
Sure.
Federal procurements are done under guidelines set out in the FPDS, which is managed by the US General Services Administration. (Think ministry of administrative affairs. :P )
Most departments of the government contract out their programs directly, but under the rules set out by the procurement office. You can actually check out what's out there and coming up for bid here (https://www.fbo.gov/).
I was under the impression that goverment contractors are hired through a bidding process.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 05:18:36 PM
I'll tell you how it works.
You are company X and you want to bid on a contract to provide cleaning services for Federal Building Y. You go through the bidding process (which is arcane and I will not waste time with that right now), and you get the contract.
In the contract, it will have provisions for the amount of the contract, the minimum amount to pay each employee, what percentage of the contract must be spent on salaries, what percent on benefits, and often percentages for other things too, like cleaning products and equipment. It is through these contract provisions that Obama would have the ability to make the mandates. That's why he specified the going forward part.
Now, I've seen a lot of contracts over the years, and I have never ever seen one that mandated less than ten bucks an hour minimum. I have seen many with minimums much higher than that. I'm sure they probably exist somewhere. But the fact that I've never seen a single one, even for jobs like dishwashers and janitors tells me that it's probably damn rare.
Thing is, those GSA contract numbers are impacted by the Federal locality matrix, just like every other federal labor costs, e.g., why janitorial contractors for a federal building in Nebraska make a shitload less than janitorial contractors for a federal building in Washington, DC.
...and he found the thread.
STOP
URKEL TIME
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 07:47:09 PM
Thing is, those GSA contract numbers are impacted by the Federal locality matrix, just like every other federal labor costs, e.g., why janitorial contractors for a federal building in Nebraska make a shitload less than janitorial contractors for a federal building in Washington, DC.
Depends. Some of the biggest agencies I've worked with set the prices flat. Alabama, Massachusetts, doesn't matter. The more the control over things is centralized, the more that is the case.
For example most of the time, a particular agency will have several HQs across the country. Boston, Dallas, Philly, SF, etc, and they have territories they are responsible for. They will usually set the prices at that level and they will vary. Recently, and particularly since about 2009, the agencies have been taking procurement authority away from the regional offices and handling it from Washington. So now we're seeing a lot more of the one wage fits all approach.
We've got people asking to be transferred from San Fran and Mass to Arkansas and Alabama as a result.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 08:46:39 PM
Recently, and particularly since about 2009, the agencies have been taking procurement authority away from the regional offices and handling it from Washington.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 08:46:39 PM
We've got people asking to be transferred from San Fran and Mass to Arkansas and Alabama as a result.
Hell yeahs. You could live like a king in Alabama with the equivalent of a Massachusetts locality boost.
Living like a king in Alabama? Meep.
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 09:14:03 PM
Living like a king in Alabama? Meep.
Worked for quite a few generations down there. Depending on circumstance, of course.
Silly me, I assumed we were talking in the 21st century.
Oooh, look what you can get down there for only $250K--
http://www.birminghamidx.com/listing.php?sid=1629861&mls=473924&site_id=675&page_current=1
edit: that would make a hell of a law office.
edit, part deux:
http://www.birminghamidx.com/search_results.php?sid=1629864&site_id=675&class_id=1&type[]=ConvSingleFamily&price_range_low=200000&price_range_high=250000&listing_count=10
Some nice ass houses for $250K. You just have to tolerate living in Alabama.
Seedy, unless you could spend 100% of your time on an SEC campus, you'd go postal after living 2 months in the deep south.
:lol: Probably. But the Souf sho' nuff do make some good eatin's down there.
I'd turn into John Candy from JFK in about 2 months, all fat and sweaty.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsC%2F2615-9760.gif&hash=22a6d8814f57e701a94230dc73560c15c8dbf32b)
He could hack it in Atlanta just fine.
I dunno, I've been to ATL. It's disorienting; you have all this traffic, but you never see where these people live. Suburban hell. At least in New York or Northern Virginia, you can see buildings. In Atlanta, it's just all road and congestion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:30:28 PM
You just have to tolerate living in Alabama.
Thank you for taking my point. <_<
I think you could hack it. You live in the world's largest insane asylum as it is now; Alabama would be a cake walk.
You could live like a Martin Luther King in Alabama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:43:47 PM
I dunno, I've been to ATL. It's disorienting; you have all this traffic, but you never see where these people live. Suburban hell. At least in New York or Northern Virginia, you can see buildings. In Atlanta, it's just all road and congestion.
Well yeah you just described every major southern city there.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 09:47:53 PM
You could live like a Martin Luther King in Alabama.
:P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:47:36 PM
I think you could hack it. You live in the world's largest insane asylum as it is now; Alabama would be a cake walk.
Does "cake walk" have a different meaning in Maryland? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:43:47 PM
I dunno, I've been to ATL. It's disorienting; you have all this traffic, but you never see where these people live. Suburban hell. At least in New York or Northern Virginia, you can see buildings. In Atlanta, it's just all road and congestion.
It's actually kinda nice having to drive a couple extra minutes to get away from major roads when going home, keeps the noise down.
I'm pretty sure I saw where the people I met on the streets of Atlanta live.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 01:13:17 AM
I'm pretty sure I saw where the people I met on the streets of Atlanta live.
Did you talk to them? "hey guys, if you think you have gotten a raw deal in life, I have $142k in student loans after getting a law degree."
I told one of them that if he didn't stop trying to, I presumed, pickpocket me, that I was going to knock the teeth he had left down his throat.
I did get scammed by one who was posing as a parking lot attendant. Hey, it was my first time in the city. I was going to chuck a coke can at her head while I was leaving, but Korea stopped me.
Here is an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail related to Ontario raising the minimum wage.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/who-pays-for-minimum-wage-hikes-the-poor/article16603374/
Some interesting bits related to the discussion in this thread:
QuoteAbout 9 per cent of Ontario's workers earn the minimum wage and, the report showed, fully 56 per cent of them are "sons or daughters living in the family home." Most aren't poor. You may bump into them on the bus glued to their latest iPhones.
Many other minimum-wage workers live in double-salary households that, together, earn middle-class incomes. Still others are older workers who supplement their pensions. In 2011, only 12.5 per cent of Ontario's low-wage workers met Statistics Canada's definition of poor.
And what happens to these workers when the minimum wage goes up? Typically, they get poorer. This group is largely made up young people living on their own, recent immigrants and adults with a high-school education or less. Employers react to a higher wage by cutting the hours of these low-skilled workers or, increasingly, laying them off and replacing them with machines.