Why does Sup Forums hate the minimum wage?

> The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity

>While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out.

>Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study.

Well Sup Forums? Instead of being Neo-Liberal corporatist shills why not get behind the minimum wage? It's literally lower in real terms than it was in 1968.

Other urls found in this thread:

cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf
forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/04/09/how-margaret-thatcher-turned-great-britains-labor-markets-around/#42c6f7b55db5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand
youtube.com/watch?v=I6L-_vVPxOY
nber.org/papers/w5224
economics.uci.edu/files/docs/workingpapers/2006-07/Neumark-08.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/227671735_Reconciling_the_Evidence_of_Card_and_Krueger_1994_and_Neumark_and_Wascher_2000
cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/even_5-2011.pdf
michaeljournal.org/feddebunked.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Source

cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf

Minimum wage should be for entry level jobs, not support families

You're a retard OP

How was worker productivity determined?

People have been tricked into thinking that working yourself into an early grave for little to no money is an honorable thing

Because then there would be less money for the CEO, Sports star, actor, etc. Plus the large corporations would have less money to monopolize the government. Then the government would start doing their jobs again and most of all, niggers would have a reason to get a job and make a better life for them selves. 90% of the people on /po/ are pro-choice just because its black genocide.

The worker has 0 bargaining power the second there are less jobs than workers. But no, that's fine, it's the socialists that are bad at economics.

Left-wing may be bad at economics, but at least we didn't skip our Poli Sci classes.

>9gag meme that makes sense to people who don't understand economics

wew

>Why does Sup Forums hate the minimum wage?

I don't. Min wage is a necessary mechanism in any welfare state to prevent business from utilising welfare as a labour cost subsidy.

Welfare is a bribe to keep the desperately poor turning to (organised) crime. It is far cheaper than the massive policing costs and elevated risk the alternative would require.

Libertardians can rail against the state all they want, the reality is the state absorbs the risk that prevents less stable nations from being efficient.

By this logic, the reforms the Conservative government introduced in the 80s were redundant because the trade unions had no bargaining power.

You had some point in there, but it was expressed with such absurd hyperboles, it became meaningless.

>It is far cheaper than the massive policing costs and elevated risk the alternative would require.
I've seen no evidence suggesting this, and if that were the case, the welfare state would be much smaller in virtually every country.

I'm not a socialist or liberal, I'm a nationalist who's not autistic like seemingly most of Sup Forums who dismiss something just because it appears to be a left wing movement.

Wealth is genuinely being concentrated in the hands of the rich, this is a fact. I have elderly relatives who worked in manufacturing who were able to support the family on their wage, nowadays manufacturing jobs pay about £25k or less so your wife needs to work too to support the family. This is degenerate, and makes no sense considering advances in technology should have yielded higher productivity.

Which reforms were those?

>Wealth is genuinely being concentrated in the hands of the rich

This is the foremost problem of today, drop the nationalism and seize the means of production.

Ultimately you wouldn't have the government have any involvement in the economy at all and let the free market do it's thing.

When you have a minimum wage, the business owner just raises the prices. And you still pay for it. If there's no minimum wage the prices will go down. And obviously wage won't go down, because people just won't take the job.

To accomplish that now is kind of futile, because it would take a long time to even out to a healthy level.

If your interested in learning about economics and like reading you can read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

Everything is explained there and is a great """redpill"" on economics. Really changes your view and why governments keep fucking with it. Add that to your worldview you and it all makes sense, considering you're all informed above average.

forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/04/09/how-margaret-thatcher-turned-great-britains-labor-markets-around/#42c6f7b55db5

Nice argument. Why not answer the question.

and

>don't understand economics

I'm not the one who ignores the law of demand

it's not a terrible thing but they will find that the cost of living will rise along with a wage increase
>increases in worker productivity
haha no

Well that is shot to hell by the fact that the government bails out failing companies. If the government is going to bail them out then they need to counter balance that by raising the minimum wage.

Actually, if you're talking demand then raising the minimum wage would benefit the economy, since workers have a higher propensity to spend

>The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity.

this may be arguable, but it does not excuse the government forcing any sort of minimum wages on the population.

if you go back to the coinage act of 1965 and nixon suspending dollar/gold convertibility in 1971 you'll find a different story. in 1965 you could get paid a minimum wage of $1.25, take those 5 quarters today and melt them, you'd have about $16 worth of metals. melt 29 quarters from your $7.25 minimum wage today and you'll get about a buck worth of metals. the coinage act and nixon delinking the dollar from gold completely is what ruined the currency. it has NOTHING to do with worker's productivity and EVERYTHING to do with the debasement of the currency. in the end the minimum wage should be abolished, because it prevents people with low skills from entering the market place. (which is ironic it keeps niggers out lel)

All wealth bubbles up, and the state must step up to the top, and keep pushing the wealth down. The middle class always shrinks, if left to its own devices.

I am a communist internationalist. Because of globalization and cheap transport, a government that is willing to exploit its citizens will be more competitive in the market for lower skilled jobs. So the developed world governments decide to step on the rights and necks of its own people for the sake of competitiveness. It also feels no obligation to support those that have suffered at the hands of outsourcing, and guide them to their new place as the economy of the country changes.

The propensity to spend is rendered meaningless because prices on goods will inflate along with the increase of minimum wage.

>workers have a higher propensity to spend

Completely moronic logic. That's akin to saying :
>Steel workers don't make enough money
>Let's raise the money of steal!

Why not raise the prices of everyting!? It's almost as if price has not effect on quantity demanded for goods.

Please retake econ 101

>>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand

Here's the thing though, the libertarian in me is against the minimum wage, but how do we solve pic related?

Productivity has increased massively since the 60s, yet people are earning barely more in real terms and by measures like sustaining a family, have less than they did.

this is a fallacy, because businesses would just have their balance sheets balanced for bigger salary expense, highering the cost of production, labor, and thus increasing the cost of products or services. economics is a science of cycles and balances.

Because it goes against partisan beliefs.

Pol is full of shills.

There should be a maximum wage too

That's assuming labor costs are the ONLY costs involved in producing goods. A 10% rise in labor costs does not equal a 10% rise in prices, since labor is only one of several cost inputs.

If you raise the minimum wage too much it is just going to result in much higher levels of unemployment as employers will be reluctant to hire as many staff especially with the rise of automation, self serve machines, etc.

Consumption is a better measure than income, as there will always be a propensity for one class of people to increase their rate of their wealth acquisition if they invest it. Also, inflation has been prove time and time again to hurt the poor more than the rich.

I'm making less than 21 and I'm pretty fucking well off. Maybe you should (spoiler) GIT GUD /(SPOLER/)

Learn fucking economy.

>end yourself

that picture is because of inflation. the rich benefit more from inflation because easy credit makes it easier for the wealthy to get wealthier, they have the banks trust because of their sound investments that made them rich (unlike the lower quintilles), making it simultaneously harder for small business' to get loans, and their debts BECOME LESS COSTLY because inflation offsets previous debts. when you have a monetary system of credit like the fed, the ENTIRE market is playing debt, inflation, and taxation to get rich man. that's all it is.

kiyosaki explains it best in this video youtube.com/watch?v=I6L-_vVPxOY

Here we go: The minimum wage is just a subtle variety of inflation. The current economic system revolves around the infantile idea that in order to resolve monetary problems all we need to do is print more money and fix interest rates. This makes it seem like the economy is doing fine and well, until it naturally readjusts itself to actual market values (a recession) and then they inflate again.

All that the minimum wage does is prompt vendors of goods to raise the prices of their goods proportional to the raise in wages of the populace. Because having more money will promote more people to spend it, suppliers of goods will need to make their goods less accessible so as to preserve the modicum of supply and demand.

Additionally, the minimum wage actively hurts the economy. Now that a worker HAS to be paid x amount of money, an amount that is completely random and reflects not at all true market values, employers will be reluctant to hire someone who the market dictates should be paid much less than that. Rather than hiring a person for less, the employer would rather not hire the person at all. Not only then does the minimum wage increase unemployment, but it forces smart employers to look elsewhere for where they can get the market's value for labor they hire, aka outsourcing.

The raising the minimum wage is literally a stupid idea that serves as nothing more as a crowd pleaser at best, and as an agent of inflation a disaster for the economy at worst.

>A 10% rise in labor costs does not equal a 10% rise in prices
It also might result in unemployment. Less income by business owners leaves less to be invested. There's no guarantee whatsoever that the money would spent in a way more beneficial to the economy by workers than by business owners. If that money is used instead to grow or maintain a business, this is superior to having it consumed by the worker. Production is almost always preferable to an economy than consumption.

Want wages to go up? Limit the labor pool. Encourage women to stay home with their family rather than stay in a job that they are barely incompetent at, and limit immigration.

Literally, that is the only artificial method of increasing wages that does any good.

Artificial wage floors have already been proven to decrease employment:

>nber.org/papers/w5224
>economics.uci.edu/files/docs/workingpapers/2006-07/Neumark-08.pdf
>researchgate.net/publication/227671735_Reconciling_the_Evidence_of_Card_and_Krueger_1994_and_Neumark_and_Wascher_2000
>cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
>epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
>epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/even_5-2011.pdf

Again, this is retarded logic. If only we had a minimum wage thousands of years ago, we'd all be rich!

Assuming this is the case, what other way is there to reverse this wealth transfer other than redistribution? I say this as a right winger generally opposed to re-distributive policies

>worker productivity

You mean computer productivity and automation productivity.

The workers are not producing more than before, the businesses are investing technology that allows the business to increase productivity independent of human labour.

michaeljournal.org/feddebunked.htm

additional resource you may like, and its not ron paul lmfao

Productivity has improved greatly due to improvements in technology, not because people are harder/better workers.

>Let's set a price floor for wages without a price floor on necessities of life
>Let's discourage additional hiring
>Consensual contract between employers and labor? Fuck that. Pay them more than they demand.

Besides that, you're really not addressing any of the fundamental issues that cause low wages and the money is expected to come from the very top earners, but it rarely does.

These are some pretty gross averages

I'm sure some high profit companies can pay all of their workers 20 dollars an hour, but many do not make enough to afford that. I think the focus should be more on these high profit companies so the market entry for new business can be saved

The workers can start their own fucking business and create more jobs. An opportunity only capitalism can provide.

Singapore and Switzerland have $0 minimum wage. Guess your economic theories are bullshit.

the easiest thing for the US to transition to would be for the fed to mimick block chain technology, or the default would be to just go to a gold/silver standard. if the government cannot print money without having to legally bind it to a physical item of value (gold for thousands of years, romans used silver too etc) then they cannot inflate the shit of us. this has been done in Rome, Zimbabwe, Wiemar republic, its all failed man. fiat currencies always die.

That dramatic jump in worker efficiency for the most part isn't because people are working harder, it's because improved technologies (which aren't free) allow them to get more output out of the same amount of work.

People work longer hours than they used to, though technology has played a huge role.

Is it moral that only the rich enjoy the fruits of these advances in technology?

Because, in the few decades after WW2, the American middle class did enjoy the benefits from these advances, in the form of higher spending power and living standards, but that is no longer the case.

The welfare state could afford to be much smaller in western nations, the problem there is people have it in their heads welfare is set by compassion and capacity rather than a question of minimum viable rate (the lowest you could pay without making criminality a viable option).

The simplest evidence for the welfare state comes from the stats. The perception of a welfare state as a viable, longterm correlates with the perception of lower operations risk for business in said nations.

The most profitable and productive corporations in the world are built around mixed market welfare states. If you are an entrepreneur looking to start a venture where do you go? Not the low tax low welfare low intervention nations in the developing world. You go to the US, to Brittan, to Australia, France or Germany. You go to a welfare state. Because there you are exposed to the least operating risk and are therefore most willing to throw all your eggs in the basket that is your new enterprise.

Welfare states work.

Party A has work that needs performed and is willing to pay X. Party B is willing to perform said work for Y amount of money. If X is greater than or equil to Y the work gets done.

Why does the government need to come in between this exchange?

I'm in favor of a deflationary currency, but I don't see that happening until the rich have bought up sufficient quantities of them, like bitcoin, that would guarantee their wealth.

This was all completely irrelevant to my point, which was objecting to your defense of the welfare state to the extent that it prevents crime, or prevents to at a cheaper rate greater that would be the cost of preventing through law enforcement. All that text, for no purpose.

>Two edge cases with tiny populations subsidised by the transportation-hub jew and the mountain jew nazi gold.

I just realised the saudis break this model too, I guess you really can have a libertarian paradise, it just needs to float on oil and cut off the hands of thieves. The slaves help too.

Damn, guess I better re-evaluate everything.

Is bitcoin really worth the hassle for anything? If you wanted to protect your wealth from inflation, surely, you would have it in funds, not any individual currency.

So if some white guy makes 60k a year he can act like Scrooge McDuck and shit on anybody making less while jews hoard all the true wealth just about drowning the competition into poverty and living like a rich pleb

>hur let's fix the economy by destroying the middle class

Great idea! Can't wait to watch most of the country struggle to afford food instead of a minority of it.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. He just gave an example of countries without minimum wage, and you provided a contrary example that doesn't refute his point at all.

mid class cucks and upper mid class cucks are retarded, they make 100k a year, boss makes dozens of millions a year.

>destroy middle class
kill yourself.

Women worked at the time, moron

>crime is lower in welfare states, which results in lower perceived risk which results in more business
>irrelevant to the point of welfare states preventing crime

A crime heavy, law enforcement heavy state would still have a higher risk perception. Constant battles between criminal organisations and enforcement don't exactly project an image of a nation safe to invest in.

>REDPILL ME ON MINIMUM WAGE
REDPILL ME ON X
>REDPILL ME ON X
REDPILL ME ON X
>REDPILL ME ON X

fucking cancer thread

>bitcoin weed and hacking

Jesus christ the faggot was right.

>let's raise the minimum wage!
>lower class makes as much as middle class
>inflation and cost of living rise to match minimum wage

>society is broken into Haves and Have-Nots

This kills the Middle Class. You should neck yourself faggot, since you're clearly too ignorant to understand basic economics.

The middle class is already being destroyed, that's the point. The minimum wage was actually higher in real terms in the 1960s than it is now, yet there was a flourishing middle class.

Wealth is concentrating in the hands of the super-rich. There's something going wrong.

Minimum wage isn't necessarily the solution, and I have many doubts particularly as a former-libertarian, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed instead of sitting around being corporate shills repeating soundbites like "you earn what you deserve!"

You're such an idiot. I was talking about your second post. I never denied crime was lower in welfare states, only that the welfare state could still be retrenched almost everywhere without sacrificing a proportionate amount of security or effective budget allocation.

you're retarded user.

Because once party A says he cant live on this wage and pay for anything but his rent and food, party B goes to hire mexican or ukrainian who will work for half of that since he dont have obligations, credits, a house to keep or a family and dont even need entertainment, good clothes, just some cash to send to his family and he will work for half of that.

There is also an option for party B to say "hey I ill pay you X even though you wont be able to live above merely existential level on that money and if you dont like that there are 10 retards behind that door who will take the offer"

Or just stop inflating the currency. Not that hard.

We didn't have a minimum wage up to 2014 and everything worked out well in Germany. It's like saying food doesn't have a price the second there is more food than people need.

Employers have to get decent workers and that has a price.

Excellent argument dipshit. If this is the extent of your ability to create reasoning for your ideas then it's no surprise you think raising the minimum wage is a good idea.

>currency inflation is always bad

:^) :o)

Why don't you take a look to the rest of the world, where the people actually manufactured most of the stuff we use today? Because for some absurd reason the asian countries are rising faster than anything else.

But how do we avoid deflation?

I know deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's a consensus among economists that deflation must be avoided at all costs for obvious reasons.

The whole world is just a bunch of tiny populations. Queensland has fewer people than Switzerland.

The only thing preventing a $0 minimum wage working in other countries is a massive welfare state and the associated nanny state regulations that go with it.

Turns out businesses can afford to pay employees more even with a $0 minimum wage when they aren't having to pay 30% corporate tax, 8% payroll tax, 2.5% workers comp, and 10% GST.

My point is tiny populations subsidised by geographical, cultural or situational events do not need to lower their perceived operational risk to attract investment, their populations are kept fat and happy by the gravytrain instead.

If everybody tried to be Singapore (if everyone is a goods/finance hub, nobody is), Switzerland (I don't think even the jews had that much gold in their teeth, and the market for high end watches is only so large) or Saudi Arabia (allahu hydrocarbons) the system would collapse.

They are edge cases, outliers, they are doing things that the entire world could not replicate.

Their standard of living is far below our baseline, they simply aren't comparable. And we're their customers.

inflation is very helpful for large debtors, that's it. it isn't helpful for neets and earners below ~100k like you.

The very idea of minimum wage is just a bribe to the poor, its a political move to get votes that only results in proportional devaluation of the currency.

Uhh. If I was making 21 dollars an hour I'd be making a good amount over my bosses in a factory.

Who the fuck would be a boss in a fucking factory if you could make the same pay at Videotan Rental and Sunbathing or Burgerjoint McTeenagers.

Jesus fuck.

yeah people who put up the most risk and work should enjoy the fruits of advances in productivity

>somethings gone wrong.

Yes. The government has gotten too large and has the power to provide welfare/subsidies/benefits to corporations.

The government should be so small and have so little power that no corporation would ever waste time lobbying them.

There's an irony in the fact that throughout history debtors were always regarded as the bottom of society, the sinners, those to be exploited, yet in our current times the primary debtors are governments, who have power over their creditors

>I know deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing,
Correct.

It's politically completely unfeasible to even suggest for the Fed to not have a no-inflation policy, so you might as well suggest having a policy that permits deflation because it's equally impossible.

Just have a target below 5% inflation, then 4%, then 3%, etc.

I didn't say that, but that's what mainstream economist almost literally believe, so this strawman, as stupid as it is, actually applies in the opposite way.

Germany didn't have it until 2014. The UK didn't have it until 1998. Size matters little in this case.

I guess we will have to differ on that point, because getting an explicit answer out of the stats is effectively impossible due to other variables clouding the relationship.

I would just say that welfare makes the potential criminality come to you, you have to go after the criminality with policing. Nobody fights against invisible chains.

the problem is that foreign born workers are rising at a sickening rate while US citizens pay the price

its not because of minimum wage its because a massive amount of immigration suppresses wages so the rich profit and the poor and middle class get shit on
its one major problem I have with libertarianism. I used to think the free market is amazing but I see now that is only true within our country and not between countries

This logic has certainly not made for a stable and happy society. Compare the USA today to that in the 1950s, when the middle classes enjoyed economic growth.

There has to be an incentive to skilled labor, hard labor, dirty work, and dangerous work.

Since you can't pay those guys 100k a year they make about 40-50k a year. If McDonald's paid 15 year Olds 40k a year there would be no incentive to work in the mines. No incentive to go to college. Total economy collapse

I don't know what you're reading into my posts. I didn't deny that welfare partially pays for itself by decreasing crime rate, only that if this were the strongest reason, it would still be much smaller.

Let the states deal with minimum wage.

>most minimum wage jobs will be automated in the next 20 years
>1000x cheaper than raising minimum wage.

>Banks too big to fail
>this means government has gotten too large

In Europe the banks are not too big to fail, they are too big to bail, often the bad debt they are holding being larger than their host nations GDP. I guess this is big governments fault too? Those damn statistics, deregulating finance then having the audacity to bail out banks when they threaten to crash liquidity with no survivors.

There is no sovereign debt crisis, there is a banking liquidity crisis that governments are desperately trying to solve by putting private debt bank on the public balance sheet.

Are there people that are this unbelievably stupid as to seriously give arguments like this? That businesses need to have a minimum wage or they won't pay their workers enough to actually employ them?

IF you know anything about economics and monetary policy you'd know that setting minimum wage is nothing but disruptive to the economy.

Value and money aren't the same thing, the free market always works on what value people offer to each other, with fiat currency the monetary number attached to that value is somewhat arbitarary which means that what matter is relative amounts of value and hence relative amounts of money.

When you give people with low value more money than the market deems acceptable, all that happens is everyones wages adjust to reflect this.

So if you work 9-5 at Mcdonalds for $10 an hour, and someone works as a trainee mechanic for $15 an hour, and min wage comes in and forces McDonalds to pay their staff $15, what will all the mechanics do? Well they're not going to go through expensive and lengths investments in education and training to do a job which pays the same as one which requires none.

So pressure is put on the higher paid jobs to pay their staff relatively more money to attract people into these positions. They are offered relatively more money because they represent relatively more value than Mcdonalds workers.

Whenever you manipulate through the use of force the money system in any way the rest of the system adjusts such that the money system mirrors the value that everything is worth. So what happens when everyone is paid more? Everything costs more, producers of goods and services simply pass this cost onto their customers and increased prices. This means that min wage people get more money but the cost of living shoots up meanwhile businesses are slashing full time contracts and abandoning staff to automation in order to ease the problem.

Simply raising min wage is like the 5 year olds method of solving social issues, socialists are like the young kid that asks "why dont we just give everyone a million dollars to solve the problem?"

Ahh fair enough. Yes I agree that welfare should and could be smaller. It is inflated by the wrongheaded notion that it exists on compassionate not practical grounds. Said as much here

>The welfare state could afford to be much smaller in western nations, the problem there is people have it in their heads welfare is set by compassion and capacity rather than a question of minimum viable rate (the lowest you could pay without making criminality a viable option).

He's arguing against minimum wage you dolt lol

that is what happens when you start hiring more foreign workers than actual citizens
it means wages don't increase very much

The Fed is completely unfeasible, you might as well trade all of your labor for a pile of dirt. Enjoy that growing wealth inequality and skyrocketing debt.