|
Too bad we live in a world where higher paid jobs aren't necessarily available for a variety of reasons, and the US has little if anything social programs for those under 65. Btw, most people who just barely make more than minimum would all be effected and would likely have a wage premium over the new minimum wage. A $15 minimum wage is likely going to increase costs, but at the same time it will be a considerable boon to consumer spending. It may result to a net loss to some businesses but ultimately the social benefits you get would likely outweigh them and you could simply give tax credits to small businesses that are the most hurt. Also a higher minimum wage means more far more tax revenue: sales, income taxes and FICA taxes will all surge which will in turn give the federal and state governments more money to work with. The issue the US ultimately has is that its manufacturing sector is already mostly gone, but declining real wages have caused what is called "secular stagnation" with declining consumer spending and ultimately growth. The US needs a way to redistribute its wealth in some form, and a much higher minimum wage (and thus higher wages in total) is one way it could happen politicall. As far as funding only "job" based education, what would this actually look like considering how many fields are oversupplied as it is with degrees? Even Nursing to a large extent is starting to fill up. Do you guys make some type of judgement call that "hard science" degrees are morally superior even if they are also no jobs for them? That said, I think it might make more sense for the federal minimum to be lower than $15 but many states to have higher than $15 (like California/Washington/New York).
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
The fact that he thinks anyway making near minimum wage is a teenage burger flipper should tell you enough about him.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
A billion more a year in consideration of the total US budget is literally nothing, and part of that money is coming back in revenue anyway. Also, if anything the military should probably be paying that anyway for people giving up their lives. Also as far the local wage floor argument, thats why I said it makes more sense at the state level for $15+ but in general the federal minimum wage needs to be far higher as well and could almost certainly sustain $11-12. Basically, there might be some flaws in a $15 dollar federal minimum wage but there are various ways to mitigate it or allow some flexibility to local wages. It is a strength of the federal system.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure, but this is the same premise underlying "well businesses will just fire 10% of their workers". If we now say that businesses do not run their labor as efficiently as possible then there's no reason to believe they'll necessarily fire workers after a minimum wage hike either. Maybe they'll just operate with a lower rate of profit since you're saying they're okay with running with a lower rate of profit than they could really get anyway. Even then the rate of profit is going to likely be effect by additional revenue from consumption, the equilibrium point would be somewhere in between.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
His argument is dependent on raising it to $15 dollars across the country at the same time, not some more moderate version with waivers for certain states that is also more gradual. If Mississippi got a waiver for a $11 dollar minimum wage it would soak up most of his complaints. Ultimately, it would probably be better to allow it to increase gradually federally to $15 then give waivers to certain much lower income states on a provisional basis. In addition, you can manage costs to business with tax credits, which government can easily fund with its additional revenue. It is quite doable. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, businesses do accept lower profit margins anytime that raising prices would be more than offset by a fall in sales. Anyway in this case a business could increase prices because demand is going to be higher. It may cause some moderate price inflation in that sense, but it isn't really an issue for the US. wateroverfire posted:LOL sure maybe if you're playing SimCity or something. States already set their own minimum wages, and the federal government has the ability to selective set a floor. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:25 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Minimum wage needs to be tied to productivity rates, and it should not ever be implemented in some staggered fashion - it must be immediate and universal. An increase to $12 by 2020 or whatever middle ground bullshit politicians are peddling is too little, too late. Accounting for the inevitable inflation and productivity increases, $12 an hour in 2020 would basically be the same thing as $7.25 an hour in 2010. Even if it were $15/hr by 2020, it would still not be enough - minimum wage right now should be at least $20. The way the minimum wage is raised right now - huge conflicts over specific dollar amounts - is unsustainable and counterproductive to a laborer's right to a living wage. It must be tied as a function to productivity, as that is naturally the outcome of a worker's labor. There is nothing unique or special about the US economy that differs from any other OECD country that makes a consistent, living minimum wage nonviable. The one thing you could argue is that the US does have more regional distinctions than many OECD countries, and that needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
There is also simply the argument of economic necessity, the only way to get consumer spending up is to get wages up at this point and the US has reached the limits of monetary policy and our fiscal policy is basically locked. Businesses don't do so well either if people can't buy their products because no one has any money. (Also, a minimum wage increase is far far far more likely than a comparable increase to the EITC.)
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In the like past 5 minutes of posting I made maybe $200. Cool, but I am going to be taxing those capital gains though (if it ever amounted to much).
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
The likelihood over a minimum wage increase passing congress is higher than the large increases in social spending/taxation you would need to replace it with. This is even more true at the state level. States are already increasing their minimum wages, while the likelihood of a robust safety net being constructed is about 0%. A minimum wage increase is also far better than doing nothing.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm actually looking for an explanation here, and not you repeating your opinion that teenagers should be paid less like it wasn't nonsensical the first time It makes his previous accomplishments seem irrelevant even though someone with some marginal skill is still going to have a wage higher than the wage floor.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Typo posted:D&D consistently asserts the left-wing Laffer curve all the time: the idea that increasing wages will always fuel growth because it increases demand enough to offset additional costs. By "left-wing laffer curve" you mean mainstream economics right, because it isn't really Marxists that believe you need wages for consumption. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:10 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:There's obviously two effects: In this sense, I don't think an ironclad federal $15 dollar minimum wage is necessarily needed but I already said this. Otherwise, you can always allow some flexibility at the state level if you did have a federal $15 rate, it wouldn't be that difficult to do and if anything would be a decent political compromise. That said, I would rather a $15 dollar minimum wage that requires adjustment than simply keeping the current system, $7.25 is way too low for the vast majority of the country and $10 is very likely still too low. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:49 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yeah, as far the minimum wage goes allowing for different wages across locales seems to be a good idea. The Swedish/Northern European system works while they are still very large unions and they are still an essential part of society, it isn't the case in the US. Ultimately, even Germany that did have a union-based wage floor also added a minimum wage recently and ultimately as employment increasing becomes more informal, it is going to be necessary at some level. As for the actual federal minimum wage in the US it is obviously up for continuous debate, ultimately if anything I would like to see if anything wages become more localized but still managed. The easiest way would to do this at the federal level with certain "tier" of states based on prevailing wages, the highest tier might be $15 with the lowest being around $10 (spitballing). In exchange, the federal minimum would be given a COLA adjustment. Cities would in many states would be able to have a level even above that, Seattle and San Francisco already have for example.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You misunderstand. The EITC won't help undocumented immigrants or underground workers. The EITC could boost the incomes of poor workers without causing price inflation because the money comes from the government rather than businesses. It has the same benefits(except for soak the rich schadenfreude), and fewer negatives. Ultimately the problem with the EITC is it is tied to the tax code, and that makes it really a issue for most poor people who live week. An emphasis on a minimum wage would do more for working people by giving them the ability to spend on a reliable basis. Also by being tied to the budget the EITC is going to be an issue in a way a minimum wage isn't. Also it could be argued that the EITC would still likely lead to price increases because the government will likely have to increase taxes to pay for it or if it deficits spends it has to increase the money supply. Ultimately, I don't think it is necessarily that big of a deal though if only because we do have some systems in place to account for increasing prices.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Porque no los dos? You can do both, but the effort is better spent on a minimum wage, especially because of budget paranoia. There are a lot of the tools in the toolbox that often work well together, the question is getting a chance to do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's a lot of economic misconceptions in this post that I'll try to untangle. One thing is that many people with fixed income have COLAs which is going to cover increase prices to some extent, especially Social Security. Basically yes, you want moderate (under 3%) inflation and the Fed has the ability to restrict the money supply if inflation really starts to go out of control. That said, inflation in the US has been if anything at times, and the it is actually pretty unclear that a much higher minimum wage would actually cause troublesome inflation for the US especially if is raised in steps over years (and maybe monkey around with rates if inflation is too high). The main criticisms against a higher minimum wage (price increases, unemployment) can be mitigate mostly with some tweaking, and it the best tool available considering a much higher EITC/Mincome isn't on the table. It is also the best way to address secular stagnation, which increased labor mobility and productivity isn't going to do. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree with that, with one caveat. The studies which show manageable price or employment effects from minimum wage increases are all based on studies on relatively small changes in the minimum wage. We don't really know what would happen after large increases in the minimum wage. So yeah, lets raise the minimum wage to 10 and then 11 and then 12 and see what happens. But people arguing for a 25 dollar minimum wage cannot have any real understanding of what the consequences would be. I guess it depends what side you want to error on. I would rather make $15 a goal over 5+ years with allow regional waivers then the possibility you would get politically bogged down trying to marginally increase it and then get caught. There is always give and take, but yeah it is very possible to cause unintended consequences if you move too fast and wage floors can't be infinitely high. But if you wanted to argue it down to $13-14, I wouldn't have much of an issue. That said, if you want to keep a market economy running then you need a way increase consumption one way or another (which also helps out not just Americans but every economy that depends on exports to the US). Ultimately, the US is the one country that might be able to pull the world away from stagnating growth. Japan, the Eurozone and most emerging markets at this point are having a difficult time for good reasons (even with generally weak currencies). If consumption surged in the US our trade deficit would likely increase but at the same time it would give the world a much needed robust market for their goods. Ultimately, though I think in the end we are more likely to stagnant. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Did you guys know that the minimum wage isn't very effective at transferring money from the rich to the poor? It was already addressed the politics of comparable public subsidies is simply off the table in comparison to a higher minimum wage, and a minimum wage is one of the few tools felt to us to conduct any redistribution period. Ultimately, from the numbers I have seen given above, I don't think it is going to be enough of a disincentive compared to its benefits when the alternative is quite literally nothing. Income needs go to up as does spending, and the status quo is unacceptable.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
The fact that there is even some consensus on both left, center and right is why a higher minimum wage is the best shot at the moment, especially in states with citizen initiated propositions. Ultimately, a minimum wage is also generally beneficial to revenue, which would at least help absorb the costs of more social benefits down the line.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The US currently has several GMI programs (SSI, SSD), as well as a couple BI programs. (Social Security and the Alaskan Permanent Fund) If anything if you want three easy steps to make the US a lot less terrible: a living wage, a federal public option open to subsidies and a mincome at least at the FPL to fill in the cracks from everything else. All of it is probably possible. Although a mincome likely will probably cost $300-400 billion a year, but it is in the realm of possibility especially with additional revenue.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
So it is better to have no sandwiches at all? Throw it in the dumpster, it was going to spoil anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:This sandwich metaphor is pretty useless and has been stretched to the breaking point. Stop talking about sandwiches. It is about as nonsense as everything else in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If we pay people zero we could push the threat of automation even farther out. I think you found the plan to save the confederacy.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
So it looks like LA is going to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour, I guess the impossible is now immediately possible. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/us/los-angeles-expected-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Oh look, it will be 15$/hr in 2020, when it will actually be worth around 12.50 after inflation. I thought most people were fine with phased in wage hikes? All things considered, it is acceptable. Also, inflation is probably not going to be that high (cumulative inflation over 5 years would probably be closer to 8-10%). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No because I think the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor is probably above 7.25 nationally and above the higher rates established by many states and cities. I think that value is probably around half the average local wage. I think that's the point which employment losses will start to swamp the redistributive benefits. But as automation improves, the employment losses will become greater and greater as employers find it cheaper to substitute capital for labor. So in the future, the minimum wage value that maximizes benefits to the poor is pretty likely to go down. Considering that we have had a higher minimum wage than that inflation adjusted, and there isn't real evidence of it causing significantly higher unemployment, where is the evidence here? In the late 1960s it was over $10 at one point, unemployment at that time was hovering around 4%. This is not to mention examples from other economies. If this is just about automation, then you need to provide evidence especially since technological change is rather inflexible and capital costs for the type of automation people are fearing is high. In addition, many employees are going to be difficult to replace. For example supermarkets got rid of some of their clerks but the rest of the staff as remained because they had to be there. Would they have stopped if wages were even lower or frozen? Probably not The automation that is going to happen will happen one way or another but technological inflexibility is going to reign it in. In comparison, the advantages of higher wages will be immediate and long-lasting. I just haven't heard a good argument against significantly higher wages at this point. As for LA, 40% of the workforce in LA makes between $9 and $15 Los Angeles isn't as wealthy as San Francisco and is a more diverse city, household median income is $56,000 (versus $73,000 for SF) in 2011. In comparison, median nationwide income was $52,000. LA is not real extraordinary and should be a good case example. Furthermore, UC Berkeley did a study along with it, and showed a minimum wage is going to have a minimal effect. If positive effects in LA outweigh negative effects, then it begs the question further of not phasing in a higher minimum wage nation-wide. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:41 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different. No money didn't mean something different fundamentally to the economy, and the differences with the 1960s are particularly meaningful when talking about a minimum wage. Just because manufacturing was a higher percentage of the workforce isn't immediately important, if anything automation would reduce employment in manufacturing quicker if anything. Chalets the Baka posted:Phasing in wage hikes is just a way to appease the crowd of doomsayers who think everything will collapse if workers are paid a decent wage at the time they actually need it. A phase-in of a minimum wage increase should take a year, maybe two, at the most. The longer it takes to phase in a minimum wage increase, the less that minimum wage is worth. The art of compromise, it is easier to boil a frog slowly. Geriatric Pirate posted:lol. I remember in the last minimum wage thread, someone pointed out that people like greeters or baggers in supermarkets could easily lose their jobs and then one of you guys tried to argue that they're just too important to ever be fired ("competition wouldn't allow for it"), completely oblivious to the fact that in ~socialist workers paradise Western Europe~, you're unlikely to find a single supermarket with a greeter or a bagger. Not to mention the introduction of automatic cashiers and so on... Basically, there's quite a lot that can still be done with supermarkets. It isn't they never can be fired, but that a minimum wage is going to be what sets off a firing panic rather then companies adopting technology and restructuring overtime regardless of the prevailing minimum wage. JeffersonClay posted:Employment data is extremely noisy, and studies which do a good job correcting for that noise by doing comparisons between contiguous areas implementing a minimum wage differential are not highly powered. There's lots of reason to believe the minimal impact on employment detected in these studies is due to the nature of the studies themselves. The issue is to what meaningful levels, and whether socially they are above the gains of wages themselves, I suspect they aren't. quote:The automation study that's been posted in the thread reaches the opposite conclusion. Remember the issue isn't automation happens but that a rise in the minimum wage is going to cause such further damage to make any raise in wages irrelevant. quote:I agree that LA will provide interesting data. The UC Berkeley study didn't show a minimal employment effect from the proposed minimum wage, it assumed a minimal employment effect from the wage. Other studies, with different assumptions, expect significant negative effects on job growth. The Beacon report was sponsored by the LA Chamber of Commerce itself. quote:There are a lot of reasons why a straight comparison with Denmark is pretty useless. The culturally homogeneous argument is already a red herring, Denmark has a large populist far-right anti-immigrant party already. Its politics isn't that different. But at the heart of the matter is the fact the comparative lack of social services in the US compared to Denmark isn't an argument for a rock bottom minimum wage but for a higher minimum wage simply because it is the only re-distributive measures we have. In Denmark, their taxes flow back into the system, in the US they don't because we don't have a system to begin with. As for a "canary in the coal mine" the issue isn't necessarily fast food prices (which are up to demand) but the quality of life gained from the system. In your perfect world, you want to lock the population in low wages without social services for perpetuity rather than risk job losses. It isn't a sustainable system even now, and our relative lack of education isn't going to be helped by keeping wages low either. Btw, saying localities should handle it is a non-answer when you start looking at many localities the US and the amount of politics gridlock in it. Also, treating automation as a sliding equilibrium is a mistake, technological and organizational progress isn't necessarily immediately responsive. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Perhaps your attempt to emulate Mr. Spock is based on a childish understanding of loving Star Trek, of all things. I don't know if Spock would be for keeping a society dangerous unequal for increasingly nebulous reasons.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Maybe the title of the thread should be "Universal Basic Income will be a thing" By the time you get the trillions together for a UBI, might as well go for the whole deal.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Halting technological progress isn't going to be workable, but at the same time it isn't an argument against a higher wages is going to hurt workers just hasn't been supported. There is not only expectation of near complete or complete cost savings on the part of the firm for existing business, but also new business from wages will cause no change in employment.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
On the topic of poverty and local minimum wages, I am surprised Oregon hasn't come up. Oregon isn't exactly rich state, and if anything the economy was quite rocky from the 1980s to the 2000s, even today it is below the national average as the 29th state by median household income ($46k versus 52k nationally using 2013-2014 data). However, it currently has an minimum wage not much lower than Washington ($9.25 in Oregon versus $9.47 in Washington) and its unemployment is below the national average (5.2%) even after the near complete collapse of logging. Why wouldn't it work for other below median income states?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Is anyone arguing for sub-$10 minimum wage? JeffersonClay was arguing for $7.25 with adjustments for inflation. Ultimately, Oregon could probably sustain a significantly higher minimum wage than it does now considering Oregon's unemployment rate is quickly reaching the comparative low point it was at in the 2000s.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/pdf.cfm?fips=41000&areatype=STATE&geotype=3 It wouldn't explain the trend of Oregon now trending toward the average with a strong recovery. Overall Oregon took a giant hit during the recession but has been quickly recovering. Moreover you should be comparing Oregon to itself not national trends, Oregon was under performing before 2003 as well if anything it has been below the national average for decades. That said, Oregon now has historically low unemployment and is trending toward the national average. Also Oregon's logging industry was dropping off a cliff during the period. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/01/charting_the_decline_of_oregon.html Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oregon underperformed even ignoring its historic performance (i.e. it became even worse off) substantially from 2004-2012. It also had a higher minimum wage than most of the country and its minimum wage increased every year starting from 2004. You can't just ignore 8 years of "higher minimum wage and worse economy" and say "well here we are today, higher minimum wage and growing economy" Oregon's logging industry was dropping off a cliff during the period. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/01/charting_the_decline_of_oregon.html Then it got hit with a bad housing crisis. If your theory held then Oregon would be under-performing continually because its minimum wage is still increasing, when if anything it is recovering well from the recession. If anything a higher minimum wage might be stabilizing it after a tricky ordination of its economy. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:06 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:It is always interesting when people say something like this and remind us all that they don't understand how economies work. Admittedly, a basic income is pretty unpractical compared to a more traditional safety net if you are going to be spending that much money. If you gave $20,000 to every adult in the US it would $4.8 trillion dollars a year. A basic income is something that sounds real nice until you realize the budgetary accounting doesn't pencil out. I would much rather have universal childcare, healthcare and education.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:When given directly to those with MPS ~1, it is fundamentally no different than the standard circulation of money within the greater economy (and can in fact prevent problems of trapped or dead money), only that the government serves to move it from the top to the bottom. Moreover than the impact on the monetary supply, it is a budgetary issue and pretty much anything else would be accomplish before it happened. I mean the things you could do with a 10th of that amount of money. A minimum wage is in fact very doable, and if anything we are on the cusp on large increases in the next few years at the local/state level. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am not opposed to min wage law, just speaking to the feasibility of a UBI and how "scary big numbers" is not an argument. My point is what you get for those scary numbers isn't necessarily the most efficient way of doing things. I think a basic income is good in a conceptional sense since it helps people admit inequality is not a good thing and that it needs to be addressed, just that it isn't practical compared to a laundry list of other reforms you could get done before you got to it. One thing you could have a limited GMI along with higher "living" wage on top of it as a incentive from the "poverty trap." The government itself wouldn't have to take the full burden of basic income, which would ultimately make it more affordable. That said, in reality I think we are going to be limited to fighting tooth and nail for a higher minimum wages and maybe some day a public health care option.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that an entire industry collapsed and drove the state economy into the shitter immediately after implementing a higher minimum wage is not a strong piece of evidence for what you're arguing for. The logging industry quite simply logged out all private land and was barred from public land, it is hard to pay people if there are literally no trees you can cut down. It was a industry that simply died because it no longer had a purpose. Ultimately, the fact that unemployment in Oregon is currently falling dramatically while the minimum wage is rising should be enough evidence. It is just at this point the logging industry has been so depressed it barely shows up in employment statistics while other industries have taken over despite a higher minimum wage. If anything you could make the argument that Oregon has been a impressive transition from very rough economic circumstances. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Wait, when was Oregon's economy "in the shitter"? From 1999 to 2012, Oregon's economy took some pretty big hits and the early 2000s recession was much worse than the rest of the country and the 2008 recession was worse as well. However, the fragility of the Oregonian economy was an issue going back to the 1980s if not longer. Basically, the logging industry was dismantled piece by piece by reality and (necessary) government regulation. This forced a major realignment in employment in Oregon but it was a rough process. That said, if you look at the data while per capita income fell during the mid 2000s, so did unemployment. What likely occurred is that higher paying logging jobs left for good, but people did find other work for lesser pay. Another thing is that Oregon's minimum wage was simply indexed to inflation, so if anything right now would be the period of greatest disruption versus the federal wage and largely nothing has happened. Ultimately any time you look at economic statistics you have to ferry out historical events to get at a grasp at what is going on. If the argument is that a higher minimum wage is causing unemployment, it didn't spell out in Oregon. Lower per capita income without a corresponding dip in employment is largely a red herring, a higher minimum wage wouldn't lower income without less employment. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 19:41
|
|