The Democrats do something...intelligent?

[Victor Galis]

Yes, but they don't have to work.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
Look outside your window. Few non-student adults make the minimum wage after their first job. Even among illegals (well, those who work in ag might make minimum). Mostly, a minimum wage increases unemployment among first-time or irregularly employed, the people who we should seek to get working as soon as possible.

Exactly what I've been saying. It makes it harder for those with no experience to get a job and get the basic skills necessary to hold one.

[mrmitchell]

In most parts of the country, yes.

BS, even around here if you're pulling down $10K a year you have to pretty much give up everything except food and heat.

You can do it but only if you have major expenses like transportation or housing taken care of. And don't plan on getting sick either...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What about times when we don't have such good economic conditions?

Usually workers call for an increase in minimal wage only during good economic conditions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
Mostly, a minimum wage increases unemployment among first-time or irregularly employed, the people who we should seek to get working as soon as possible.

It doesn't make any difference.

Either hire three at shameful wages or hire two at a better rate. It's likely that the three people in the former case require government assistance anyway.

The cost is still there. Either the society pays for it, or companies pay for it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Usually workers call for an increase in minimal wage only during good economic conditions.

But they don't get rid of them when those conditions end.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It doesn't make any difference.

Either hire three at shameful wages or hire two at a better rate. It's likely that the three people in the former case require government assistance anyway.

Exactly the point. Better to have them receiving government assistance and employed, being productive, than receiving government assistance and producing nothing.

The cost is still there. Either the society pays for it, or companies pay for it.

Since it's society's obligation, society ought to pay. And from a simple practical perspective, it doesn't make sense to penalize the people who are helping these people anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But they don't get rid of them when those conditions end.

Why should they? It's not like they would get raises proportional to the company's increase in revenues when business is expanding. OTOH, they probably will bear the blunt of any economic contraction.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Exactly the point. Better to have them receiving government assistance and employed, being productive, than receiving government assistance and producing nothing.

Uh, your equation only works if their production is a constant. It turns out that, for these kind of jobs, a modest increase in wages has a much bigger positive effect on productivity.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Since it's society's obligation, society ought to pay.

I don't see why a society should pay a company's workers, at least partially.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And from a simple practical perspective, it doesn't make sense to penalize the people who are helping these people anyway.

That's why it's better to have two persons working at a higher wage level than three at a miserable one.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Uh, your equation only works if their production is a constant. It turns out that, for these kind of jobs, a modest increase in wages has a much bigger positive effect on productivity.

Cite?

That's why it's better to have two persons working at a higher wage level than three at a miserable one.

I suppose engaged working people ar equally prone to criminal activity as those not employed. Idle hands and all that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why should they?

Because that's when the minimum wage actually causes damage. Duh. That was my original point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Uh, your equation only works if their production is a constant. It turns out that, for these kind of jobs, a modest increase in wages has a much bigger positive effect on productivity.

BS. I would have bagged groceries at Giant at the same rate if they paid me $5.45 (I think it was) or $7.45.

I don't see why a society should pay a company's workers, at least partially.

Because society has an obligation to the poor. That's the entire idea behind the minimum wage and welfare and the social safety net. It's not the company's obligation.

That's why it's better to have two persons working at a higher wage level than three at a miserable one.

What? Why? They're doing the same work, but in one case roughly 50% more is getting done. The same costs are paid, too, because we'd have to support that other person anyway.

[Arrian]

That's why it's better to have two persons working at a higher wage level than three at a miserable one.

Yeah, because we want high unemployment rates. Let's emulate France, yeah!

-Arrian

[DanS]

BS, even around here if you're pulling down $10K a year you have to pretty much give up everything except food and heat.

Ever tried it?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
In most parts of the country, yes.

Not in any part of the country.