I did watch Colbert, but I don't think we saw the same thing. His "testimony" if you can call it that, was about treating migrant workers equally, or at least less brutally than we already do. I didn't know the UFW had this challenge either, if the work they're taking is so good you think that during a recession thousands would be jumping on these jobs. I saw Bryan Caplan give a good essay on Immigration. Almost anything is better than what we are doing right now.
What reality do you live in? What sort of upward mobility do you envision for a gas station attendant working the night-shift or a fry-cook at McDonalds. They're not all going to become managers... On count #2, without going into an argument as to whether having children is always as black and white of a choice (I'm talking condom use negotiation among other issues), I maintain it's not the children's fault their parents were irresponsible. The quality of their lives shouldn't be made to deteriorate. Why is this absurd? If McDonalds, for example, can offer their fry-cooks hourly wages below the current minimum wage and still fill the same number of positions, why wouldn't they? You don't think there are any families who, despite receiving government assistance, are struggling to put food on the table? That doesn't exist anymore?
Competition. Your scenario was completely bogus. I think I clearly explained why it was bogus. If you're really doubting my analysis, please do some research. Look up how much people receive in federal welfare if they have children. Look up how much people receive in food stamps if they have children. Now, there are other circumstances that could cause people to struggle to put food on the table (health care comes to mind), but they're completely unrelated to minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws hurt the least productive and the poorest members of society the most. This was made abundantly clear in the link I posted. Minimum wages laws, in essence, price out the people who would work for less than minimum wage. Restrictions on the market always have unintended, negative consequences.
Can you elaborate? If a restaurant can employ the same number of people after they lower the wage they pay their workers as they had before the drop, how would 'competition' motivate them to push away those increased profits? That flies in the face of basic assumptions about how people think economically. I think you are way off-base here. A given family has a pool of funds coming in and a stream of funds going out. If a given person is working the maximum number of hours a week that is humanly possible at a minimum wage job and their hourly wage then drops, the quality of life they can provide for themselves and their children undoubtedly falls. How can you possibly argue that the abolition of minimum wage laws wouldn't cause wages for unskilled work to fall? Granted, if some factory dropped the wage to $1/hr then they would probably find 0 employees. However, there's doubtlessly some wage lower than the current minimum wage that unskilled workers would shrug their shoulders and accept. What do you envision happening if minimum wage laws were abolished?
If the workers aren't worth $X/hour, then I don't see why they would expect to be paid more than $X/hour. Have you ever actually heard of a company reducing the pay of someone who makes less than $10/hour? As for your hypothetical, again, it's a ridiculous hypothetical. Why would they risk reducing pay of employees? Obviously, some of them would think that the pay cut was unfair (I probably would...) and quit. This would cost McDonald's money since they now have to spend time and money hiring and training new employees. Also, leave out the appeal to the majority next time. Fine. That doesn't mean that they starve. I have a hard time believing that someone is working the "maximum number of hours a week that is humanly possible at a minimum wage job" and is still having trouble putting food on the table. Also, the whole "their hourly wage then drops" isn't really related to this discussion (red herring). We're talking about the laws on the books, not some hypothetical scenario where the employer decides to lower an employee's wages. Your argument is basically a hypothetical scenario about an employer reducing the wages of his workers with no evidence to back it up. Why would it? You have reason to believe that it would? See, this is the part where you produce evidence to back up your case. Not flimsy hypotheticals that pop into your mind. The market dictates the price of labor. By artificially raising the price of labor to X amount (minimum wage), you reduce the demand for labor since people who's labor isn't worth X amount won't be hired. I envision unemployment decreasing. Shocker, I know.
Are you joking? You're struggling to provide for your family in a rough economy and you're going to say "fuck it" if your pay is cut based on principle? Bullshit. Wow, dead-weight loss, you learn that in econ101? You're a regular professor! I never made the claim that unemployment would not decrease. I'm not even touching that argument. What I was arguing was that an abolition of minimum wage laws would, for the most financially vulnerable of our society, reduce quality of life. If you want to make the argument that the number of people that could potentially gain employment upon a flood of $5.50/hr jobs in the labor market would have greater net social gains than the negative effects that would occur when the people already working minimum wage jobs suffer dramatic cuts in pay, go ahead. But don't be intellectually dishonest in denying that those who are working minimum wage jobs would be at serious risk of having their incomes reduced (and therefore the quality of life reduced) if minimum wage laws were abolished.
And by lowering the minimum wage, hopefully these people are smart enough to understand that IF they have a baby at 18, they are probably going to be pretty hungry. However, if they wait till they can afford a kid and actually have a meaningful relationship these single mama' workin' 20 jobs but the man keeps holdin dem down would cease to exist. No, not because they are all going to starve to death because they will be prepared
Like I said, if you're being paid more than your worth, expect to either take a pay cut or to lose your job. And you have no evidence to back this up other than your weak-ass hypotheticals about what you believe would happen to the labor market. They're already at serious risk of having their incomes reduced and therefore the quality of life reduced regardless of minimum wage laws. They could be fired. Minimum wage laws are not a safety net for the poor as you would have us believe. They merely set a minimum price that employers must pay for wages. Think about how silly a minimum price would be in any other market.
How very enlightened of you.. So when a woman who's living with the man who's offered to take her in as well as her child from a former partner is faced with the threat of losing this stability in an issue of condom negotiation, what should she choose to do?
What about the moms who got pregnant because of a broken condom? What about the rape victims? What about all the people who were brought up in crappy ways and didn't have the glorious options many of us do? What about the handicapped? How do you expect people to get a higher education and peruse better jobs if you cut their only means of getting a higher education? Tons of minimum wage jobs belong to college students who barely get by regardless of their mistakes or the things they did right. Cut their wages and you cut off their attempt to do better for themselves.
I love this myth that minimum wage laws provide a safety net. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk]YouTube - The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws[/ame] http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/16/minimum-wage-labor-economics-opinions-contributors-art-carden.html No one is talking about cutting their wages. We're talking about allowing employers to pay their employees what they want to pay them as opposed to setting a minimum price for labor. Minimum wage laws are not a safety net. It's a minimum price that an employer is legally allowed to pay their employees. It's comparable to the government setting a minimum price for any other good/service.
Minimum wage laws take jobs away from teens and other unskilled laborers, so how do you figure increasing their employment opportunities would hinder their chances of getting a 'higher education'?
I don't think I quoted you with that did I Kstigs? Clearly JamesUNT thinks we should lower minimum wage. Minimum wage laws take jobs away from some teens and unskilled laborers, but what about all the people who already have minimum wage jobs trying to increase their education and get better jobs? I'm talking about the guy who thinks lowering minimum wage would fix the problem, not the guy talking about removing minimum wage laws.
Which is not equivalent to cutting their wages. Nice try though. What about them? Why would their wages be cut if minimum wage laws were abolished or minimum wage was reduced? Is their labor not worth the current minimum wage? If it's not, why hasn't their employer fired them if their labor is not worth their wage? Lowering the minimum wage is certainly better than raising it or leaving it where it's at.
Alright so your plan is to take away minimum wage laws? That would probably increase the employment without lowering anybodies income how? Where are the extra jobs going to come from? If you can politely clear things up for me I'd appreciate it.
That would be ideal. I'm not going to pretend to be able to predict everyone's market wages, but I don't see why abolishing a law on the minimum price someone can pay a worker would reduce the wages of people who are already employed. As I've said before, the only people who may be hurt is those people who are earning more than they're worth to the employer which would happen regardless of minimum wage laws. Economies grow. Wealth grows. Jobs are created. Yes, initially most of the jobs being created from the abolition of the minimum wage laws would be the jobs that pay below or near the previous minimum wage (since that is where most of the new labor demand will be); however, as these workers get experience and produce wealth (by providing goods/services), better-paying jobs will be created (through economic growth).
Yes I suppose I was thinking you meant short term. Like all of a sudden Mc Donalds needs 10 employees a day instead of 5. That was pretty poor on my part not looking at the long term. Long term this would be good. I guess in the end now that I've had some deviled eggs I've cleared things up for myself. That and gay Jeff Cockworthy in the background for some reason I haven't changed it. Anyhow. Sometimes we have to fuck over 1,000 people to help 10,000 people. Abolish minimum wage laws, but at least admit theres a chance some people are getting fucked. Good people trying to educate themselves and do better for themselves than the 10,000 you're helping. Either way this is about Colbert's appearance. To me the overall point was; Lets treat these people like people, not just more workers. He goofed off as expected but in the end he made his point.