Thank you, labor unions ......

[Jon Miller]

In HC's world, everyone who is not an idiot or lazy can get a job making over 40k a year with benefits and with minimal unemployed time.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Yes, we should indeed make sure the children of the poor have the same career opportunities as the children of the wealthy, assuming equal talent. That's why, for example, we should have public education available to all children.

Yes, including higher education.

I am ok with the wealthy getting more if they pay for it... Yale/Harvard/etc.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Dear lord..

You do realize that the vast majority of minimum wage workers are grown ups who are feeding families, not just high school kids making money to go out drinking with right?

Pretty sure that's actually not true. I will concede that my experience is anecdotal, so if you have some stats that say otherwise, go ahead and share them.

[C0ckney]

Actually, if the population is at or near full employment, I expect minimum wage can move some 'wealth' from the capitalists to the poor, with minimal effect on unemployment.

JM

this is essentially what happened in the UK. there was something of a redistribution from capital to those at the bottom of the labour market with a minimal effect of unemployment. interestingly, this happened even though we were not at full employment.

[Hauldren Collider]

In HC's world, everyone who is not an idiot or lazy can get a job making over 40k a year with benefits and with minimal unemployed time.

JM

For the third time this thread, not what I said. Y'all absolutely love to mischaracterize me. Must make things easier?

[Jon Miller]

I didn't claim that you said that in this thread.

It is my perspective on your view of universe.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Your perspective is wrong, douchebag. If you want to debate a strawman, make a DL. Otherwise, let's stick to things real people actually believe.

[C0ckney]

What are you talking about? C0ckney said that minimum wage has minimal effect on unemployment to which you called 'Bull****'. You're now saying that he was right?

just to be clear ken. i said that in the UK the minimum wage had a positive effect on the wages of the lowest paid and a very minimal effect on unemployment.

it's important to remember that minimum wages are a distortion of the labour market. my argument is, and has always been, that (in the UK at least) this distortion has had more positive than negative effects. the available evidence makes this very clear.

however i can easily imagine a situation where the negative effects would outweigh the positive. if a minimum were set at a level too far above the marginal value of the low paid's product. i suspect this has probably happened in some places. although i do note that when i have asked opponents of minimum wages to supply evidence of it, they have become remarkably reticent.

A minimum wage law will have massive effects on unemployment if it is actually higher than the bottom tier wages.

the evidence from the UK says otherwise. there is a point at which the wages of the lowest paid can be raised substantially with few negative effects.

[kentonio]

Pretty sure that's actually not true. I will concede that my experience is anecdotal, so if you have some stats that say otherwise, go ahead and share them.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...l#.UEY345awXqA

25.8% under 20 years of age.

[Jon Miller]

Your perspective is wrong, douchebag. If you want to debate a strawman, make a DL. Otherwise, let's stick to things real people actually believe.

Why do I need to make a DL?

JM

[kentonio]

it's important to remember that minimum wages are a distortion of the labour market. my argument is, and has always been, that (in the UK at least) this distortion has had more positive than negative effects. the available evidence makes this very clear.

however i can easily imagine a situation where the negative effects would outweigh the positive. if a minimum were set at a level too far above the marginal value of the low paid's product. i suspect this has probably happened in some places. although i do note that when i have asked opponents of minimum wages to supply evidence of it, they have become remarkably reticent.

I was against the minimum wage when it was proposed for the UK, because I bought into the line that it would hurt business. Since being proven wrong (and feeling like a fool for it ) I've still never seen any data from elsewhere showing significant negative effects. I agree completely that there must be a point somewhere where it would do damage, but hey if you drink enough water you'll drown.

[Jon Miller]

http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...l#.UEY345awXqA

25.8% under 20 years of age.

You notice how high those numbers got by 2010...

Actually, the unemployment rate hid a bit how bad the recession was.

I didn't realize that 2011 had improved things so much (better unemployment rate, fewer minimum wage jobs).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I was against the minimum wage when it was proposed for the UK, because I bought into the line that it would hurt business. Since being proven wrong (and feeling like a fool for it ) I've still never seen any data from elsewhere showing significant negative effects. I agree completely that there must be a point somewhere where it would do damage, but hey if you drink enough water you'll drown.

I think that we haven't reached that point as long as capitalists capture most of the wealth increases.

JM

[MrFun]

The unions preventing the standards from being eroded is precisely the problem. We have tons of overpaid union employees that would rather drive their companies into bankruptcy than accept a pay cut. Even worse, they'd rather put taxpayers on the hook for it. C.f. the GM bailouts.

I don't think union workers are overpaid. I think non-union workers are underpaid.

[snoopy369]

I walked into a small tile shop a few weeks ago looking for tile for my bathroom. I asked the guy running the shop about installation, and he told me not to bother; there was no way it would be reasonable. He was running a union shop, and between the minimums and the hourly rate, the installation would be several times more expensive than what anybody else would charge - and that's exactly how he explained it. Because it was a union shop, he wouldn't even try to get my business.

That is the problem with modern day unions... they force the businesses - and this is a business that's basically run by union guys, not exactly an evil big corporation - to charge rates that are well outside of the bounds of what the market considers reasonable, and force them to follow rules that are so inflexible to prevent them from competing with other companies.

I don't think that any reasonable person, Republican or Democrat, can argue that Unions in the 1890s filled a valuable role in contributing to the modern day labor situation where workers have rights which are respected by the courts. I also think, however, that any similarly reasonable person should accept that at this point, many unions are a hindrance to both workers and corporations, and by extension to the economy. They don't necessarily need to always be so - but the way they are currently instituted, they clearly are. There needs to be a different solution - one that serves to advocate for workers while not inhibiting corporate activities. Unions should not be anti-corporate; the larger the company is able to expand, the better it will generally be for the employees. Unions should be pro-business, while advocating for the workers to get a reasonable share of said expansion. That part Unions don't currently understand.