Should We Raise the Minimum Wage?
In which John discusses the minimum wage, and whether raising the minimum wage would negatively affect employment in the United States.
Thanks to Rosianna for graphics and research help: http://www.youtube.com/missxrojas
About Card and Kreuger's famous study of New Jersey and Pennsylvania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_...
Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? http://www.cepr.net/documents/publica...
Do higher minimum wages reduce poverty? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...
A Washington Post overview of the minimum wage debate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kaitlyn
(new)
Feb 05, 2014 04:38AM
I'm glad this is the video he chose to make. I think the argument about minimum wage is really important.
reply
|
flag
I find it ridiculous that I'm 17 working for spending money and I make almost 5 more dollars per an hour than a 40 year old woman with a family to feed.
$7-25/hour is the current. Many law makers are proposing to raise it to $10.10/hour. Even $10.10 is too little. I think that at least $25/hour is acceptable.
$25 an hour is approximately $50,000 a year ($25 x 40 hours week x 50 weeks). That's more than the median household income here in flyover country, and almost the household median for the whole US ($53,046) according to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat....
Raising the minimum wage will just create more unemployment for non skilled workers. It is simple economics, if your cost goes above your profit, you must cut costs or raise profit. Cutting costs cancels out jobs while raising profit simply moves the price/wage number without doing anything for the standard of living.
but, when you raise minimum wage, more money would be spent on those workers buying from those companies, so over time, employment would still stay the same.
Not so. The fact is that most companies cannot afford to raise the wage of their workers, and if they are forced to by government intervention is will come to laying off a worker to pay the second worker the "fair" wage. And the idea that the employee would simply spend the difference between the current minimum wage and a higher minimum wage on that same company is simply wishful thinking. Prices are raised to make up for the loss of paying the employee more.
Well, I am willing to try it and see if the doom and gloom scenarios projected come true. Let's have a go, shall we? Because the current minimum wage certainly isn't working for too many workers right now.
It isn't that the minimum wage isn't working. It is that there is a minimum wage at all. If true economic prosperity and "fairness" were to take place, it would be under the repeal of the Federal Reserve, moving back to the gold/silver standard, and it would involve far less government regulation. I work for a little over the minimum wage, and I would not have a job if the minimum wage was raised simply because my employer couldn't pay it. The minimum wage does nothing but creates more requirements for a job.
We have tried raising the minimum wage over and over again. It does not work.
People (not saying you do) blame companies for low wages. I blame the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve for inflating the worth of the dollar.In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour. And because of the silver content in those quarters, today they are worth $26.21. Minimum wage isn't the issue it is the decline in the dollar because of poor government control (i.e. any control) of the money supply. We have no one to blame but the Federal Government, and ourselves for letting them do it.
By the way, since I am on a roll. . . I really do love Vlogbrothers (and John is my favorite, don't tell Hank or Dave). But I found this video to be weak without really offering any contribution to the discussion other than "it's not good or bad."
And if I do come off as spammy and rude, I do apologize. Economics and Political activism is something I hold highly important, so my opinions can become heated at times.
William wrote: "Jarod wrote: "People (not saying you do) blame companies for low wages. I blame the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve for inflating the worth of the dollar.In 1964 the minimum wage was ..."
I disagree on the wage cap. The income inequality gap hasn't changed since the 1960's. I believe if you take away a person's success, then they, and others will not try as hard.
The wealth in the United States isn't a pie. The wealthy just don't have 99% of the pie. Wealth is created by individuals. If there isn't enough pie, bake one yourself (probably a horrible analogy).
Government regulation is generally a bad thing.
The rich have continually had control of roughly 30% of the wealth since the '60s, give or take a percentage or two. That hasn't changed. The worth of the dollar is the only thing we need to be worrying about in monetary reform. Here is a piece of Murray Rothbard on a Libertarian (Austrian school of economics) for how to deal with pollution. http://mises.org/daily/2120
And if you want something else, the Non-Aggression Axiom is central to Libertarian thought, and any pollution of an individual's private property is aggression against that person.
No because if we look at back in history during the Great Depression the minimum wage was also raised, this caused an effect to the economy that many do not recognize. It caused food prices and prices of goods to go up causing people to buy less and it drove out businesses. The increase in prices would make it hard for people to buy and businesses to do well.
Not to mention the people who were willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but because of the authoritarian government under FDR, they instead couldn't work. Less than minimum wage is better than not working.
The more I study the Great Depression, the more I understand how it is a prime example of how government is not to be used.
I don't think you rightly understand what a Libertarian is. Just throwing out a few issues of the day, I will show an example of a Libertarian. -I believe you have a right to the money you earn.
-I believe you have a right to your personal property.
-I believe you have a right to protect yourself and innocent others from imminent danger.
-I believe the Government which governs least governs best. Or not at all.
-I believe you have a right to do whatever you may wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. (examples of this are gay marriage, and drug use)
-I believe int he Non-Aggression Pact; where aggression cannot be used against an innocent person.
That in a nutshell is what a Libertarian is. They are not right-wing, they are not left-wing. They take what is best from both sides which promote Liberty and Freedom and fight against everything else, i.e. Libertarians v. Statists. To put it as simply as possible, I am for maximum freedom, be it economic, the right to own a firearm, or the right to smoke weed, or the right to marry who you wish.
FDR was as close to a Tyrant that this Country has ever come to. The New Deal Policies not only prolonged the Depression (which lasted only a few years in other Countries) but also set up regulatory norms that hurt us still today. Research suggests that since the Great Depression, government intrusion into the market place has prevented the growth and prosperity that we would have had by over 90%.
The Top 1% estimated share of the wealth:
From the Survey of Consumer Finances:
1962 - 31.6% of wealth
1983 - 31.5%
1989 - 30.1%
1992 - 30.2%
1995 - 34.6%
1998 - 33.9%
2001 - 32.7%
2004 - 33.4%
2007 - 33.8%
From the Economic Policy Institute:
1962 - 33.4% of wealth
1983 - 33.8%
1989 - 37.4%
1992 - NA
1995 - NA
1998 - 38.1%
2001 - 33.4%
2004 - 34.4%
2007 - 34.6%
Consistently around the same share of the wealth. Can I see some evidence that backs your claim?
But the overarching idea that the wealthy own a percentage of all the money is silly. There is no finite amount wealth. Wealth is created by individuals. Just because they have a lot doesn't mean we cannot have a lot as well.
I will try to navigate your comment.I don't think you have any actual understanding of how politics works. Generally all Politicians are crooks. I can name two or three I actually have any respect for. But, I can make the argument that the greatest crooks are the ones for larger government because Government is the great monopoly on legal violence and mayhem. Government is the greatest perpetrator of illegal operations. During the 20th Century, 120 million people were killed by their governments. The four out of five prisoners in the American System were there for smoking weed, not hurting anyone.
By your own words and logic, Law Breakers break the law. Legality means nothing to a lawbreaker. The Martin v. Zimmerman case is loaded with lies and propaganda on both sides of the case. A horrible example if you ask me, but I think it is the only one that may come to mind. Guns are lawfully used by conservative estimates in over one million defense situations every year. If guns are restricted you will have more Trayvon Martins. But I don't think you understood my comment on the Non-Aggression Principle. Google it.
The most successful thing FDR ever did was locking up hundreds of thousands of innocent Asian Americans during World War II. And I don't really think that is a good thing, do you? If anything, I am being hurt at this moment by legislation passed under FDR. I am not thankful for anything that man did in office.
Americans are the richest in the world. We as a country are the 1%. If you make over $1,000 a year you are already in the top 20% of the world. The poor in the United States has a better standard of living than the average citizen in many European Countries. And no, it applies to all of the 1%. That is why they are called statistics from a reputable source.
If you are going to continue to debate with anecdotal evidence, you will not get far. I would take a look at this site for further information.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
And I would like evidence that supports your claims. As I stated anecdotal evidence has no relevance.
Your first link I found the fifth point to be rather funny. I here mostly Democratic Supporters pull this one. "Corporations and Capitalists have control over Government. . . Therefore we need more Government."The upworthy video is an appeal to emotion. Yes, if you put it in neat little blocks it seems like we are not getting our "fair share", but I again give you the statistic that besides the United States, Canada, and many Countries in Europe, the average income to an individual is less than $1,000 a year. Most live on less than $2 a day. If you make over $1,000 dollars in a year, you are already in the top 20% of the world's wealthiest people. If you make over $30,000 (which is the average American income)you are getting pretty close to that 1% mark. With that said, why don't you cut back? Why don't you have the government takes half of what you earn, to send and give to those in need. Because lets face it: We are the 1%.
I think of is you who doesn't know who the one percent is. And not a different context but a different scope of the issue. Income inequality isn't an "American" thing. tating something doesn't make it true, it seems to me, you do not have the proper grasp of who the one percent are, who the wealthy are, what income inequality is, and more importantly what the actual problem is.
From what you have shared here, it doesn't seem like you understand what we are discussing. I am looking at the scope of the problem. I have given data and research supporting my opinion of the problem.
Class warfare is quite honestly ludicrous and dividing. The rich are rich because they have earned that wealth. Eight out of ten Millionaires are no longer millionaires after only a few years.
But your arguments can also work against you. If their is wealth inequality between the poor and wealthy in the United States, why cannot that be extrapolated with data to the world? Territory borders defined hundreds of years ago? Lets face it. We are the 1%. If you are honestly against income inequality, live on less than $1,000 a day and give the rest away to those in need. It is hypocritical to suggest that the wealthy in America need to have a wealth cap while the wealthy of the world do not. America doesn't operate on different natural economic laws. Put your money where your mouth is, or else stop railing on the wealthy in only a fraction of the world's landmass and instead do what you obviously think it best. Get rid or your wealth.
But I don't see that happening, why? Because Capitalism is one of the greatest inventions there have ever been. Before Capitalism the way to get rich was to kill, steal, and torture. Capitalism offers a way to get rich by serving your fellow man.
Do you own a smartphone? Do you have mass produced clothes on your back? Can you go to the supermarket to get food for the week? Do you have access to the internet? Do you have access to transportation to a job where you can earn over seven times more money in an hour than the majority of human beings earn in more than a week? Thank Capitalism, thank the Rich. Because without them, we wouldn't be so well off as we are now.
If you truly believe in income inequality, live on $1,000 a day and then you can talk to me about income inequality.
The first link does nothing to refute my facts listed above. It is just a journalist with an opinion. The second link I found funny because it is the same as the first link, but nearly all of the problems that are mentioned that hurt the middle class are government caused. Once I can get to a desktop I'll go into further detail.
The quotes below are taken from your second link."Meanwhile the rich have remained whole, thank you very much. Wall Street tycoons were bailed out. The stock market has recovered with the Dow now over 11,000 so all is well with the investor class. Of course the big corporations, having moved their labor operations to 3rd world countries are quite profitable, as are the private health insurance behemoths, their brother pharmaceutical giants as well as all the defense related industries (with their huge government contracts) that never had it better."
All this can be blamed for a farreaching government. Over regulation is the only thing to blame for this.
"But for the working men and women (on whose backs made this country the envy of the world) have seen their fortunes go with the globalization of manufacturing and outsourcing of their once good paying jobs.
Small towns have withered and died with the loss of their manufacturing plants while the town’s small businesses got decimated and replaced by the likes of Wal Mart and big corporate franchising of the stores, businesses and restaurants that were once owned and operated by local entrepreneurs."
Again, only the government with (hilariously) raising the minimum wage which leads to outsourcing to Countries that do not have such regulations. This in fact takes away the jobs from Americans and brings prosperity to those in the new Countries. Once again, Government is to blame.
The rest of the article is FDR worship with absolutely no facts or evidence to support its case.
I am one of the poor. I certainly don't think those in the lower class are the problem. I am saying there is no problem with the free market. Government Regulation is meant to stymy growth and to cover the consumer's laziness. As a Libertarian who believes in the Non-Aggression Pact, I believe war is only an option when you are attacked first. When I say cut the budget and lower taxes, I don't just mean social programs. . . I mean everything. As a rule, less government is better.
Individualism, Liberty. These are things you can only have with a tiny government, or none at all.
Capitalism is driven by profit. Yes. No Capitalist has ever said this was wrong. Profit drives the economy. But that is by no means a bad thing. Greed is the sustaining and driving force by human nature. It cannot be discarded for more government oversight and control. Because it is apart of who each of us are.
Let us play a Socratic game.
Do you believe people are not able to govern themselves? Make decisions for themselves? Be their own master?
Socialism drives everyone into poverty. Where will the money come from to pay for more social programs?Unalienable is used for a reason. Rights cannot be restricted or taken away. Period. Your right to swing you fist ends at another person's nose. As long as your actions do not cause aggression and harm against another person you have the right to it. The First Amendment protects all speech, not just the ones you agree with.
And if you kindly would answer my last question posed, do you believe people are not able to govern themselves?
Bigotry and sexism still should be protected. Because if you have no freedom to make the wrong choice, what freedom do you have?How does socialism make it affordable? Where does the money come from?
And again, you do not have an accurate view of how Social Security works. Legislation routinely dips into the Social Security Fund to borrow money from other projects. This happens enough to where the money that the citizens get from their Social Security Checks are paid by the taxes taken out of yours and mines paychecks. There is no real Social Security Fund to speak of. Social Security, running their current gambit, will be totally defaulted and destroyed under the weight of its own bureaucracy. And the money that I have forcibly taken from my paycheck, I will never see back. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in the purest form. http://www.cato.org/publications/poli...
If people can govern themselves, why do we put people in power to control them?
And I want to clarify, sexism and general bigotry is silly, stupid, mean, and wrong. But none the less, it should still be protected. Freedom of Speech stands for everything.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. . . "That is an excerpt from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There shall be no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say "unless that are aweful human beings". It protects all speech. Yes, that means we must put up with idiocy. But once you make some things illegal to say, that is a very small step to making non-bigoted remarks illegal as well.
Hypothetically (I don't actually believe the next sentence), I am deeply insulted by you saying that I make no sense. I am also deeply insulted when someone mocks my religion, or someone says I need to pay more taxes, or I have really dark hair. I am deeply insulted when someone says I am fat. Should all those things be illegal because I find them offensive?
Of course not. Freedom of Speech is protected for all speech, regardless of what you or I think about it. To quote A Song of Ice and Fire: "When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say." In other words, when you silence a man it just says that you don't like what he says. Everyone has the right to say the most bigoted things imaginable. They shouldn't, but they do. The military saying comes to mind: "I don't support what you say, but I will defend you with my life for you to say it".
Let me put it a different way: I hate that you say this country needs socialism. In fact, I feel insulted by it. By your logic that would mean we need to outlaw what you said.
Do you agree with that? Of course you don't, because you said it. The same goes for each and every human on this Earth.
As to how I feel? I get taunted quite often because of what I believe. The way I get over it is to have skin thicker than tissue paper.
William wrote: "Jarod wrote: "And I want to clarify, sexism and general bigotry is silly, stupid, mean, and wrong. But none the less, it should still be protected. Freedom of Speech stands for everything."http..."
What for your last "point". Basically what you are saying that people cannot govern themselves? If they need that government, obviously they cannot run their own lives, correct?
I think I may bow out of this conversation depending on how much of a response you give. It is obvious you will not be swayed. If I may make a suggestion, read on the theories and ideas from other political movements, groups, parties, and individuals. You may find you like them. And if not, at least you are more informed on their positions, and their relation to yours.
If they need a uniting overarching organization, then they cannot govern themselves.As much crap and a bad reputation the WBC gives certain people in our society, they deserve the same rights as anyone else. That is not to say I agree with them, but for the sake of freedom and liberty, they must have the same rights as everyone else.
