Minimum Wage's Discriminatory Effects
As if more proof were needed about the minimum wage's devastating effects, yet another study has reached the same conclusion. Last week, two labor economists, Professors William Even (Miami University of Ohio) and David Macpherson (Trinity University), released a study for the Washington, D.C.-based Employment Policies Institute titled "Unequal Harm: Racial Disparities in the Employment Consequences of Minimum Wage Increases."
During the peak of what has been dubbed the Great Recession, the unemployment rate for young adults (16 to 24 years of age) as a whole rose to above 27 percent. The unemployment rate for black young adults was almost 50 percent, but for young black males, it was 55 percent.
Even and Macpherson say that it would be easy to say this tragedy is an unfortunate byproduct of the recession, but if you said so, you'd be wrong. Their study demonstrates that increases in the minimum wage at both the state and federal level are partially to blame for the crisis in employment for minority young adults.
Their study focuses on 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts, understandably a relatively inexperienced group of labor market participants. Since minimum wage laws discriminate against the employment of the least-skilled worker, it shouldn't be surprising to find 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts its primary victims.
Among the white males, the authors find that "each 10 percent increase in a state or federal minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.
"But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent."
The authors go on to say, "The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduces hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and 6.6 percent for black males."
Even and Macpherson compare the job loss caused by higher minimum wages with that caused by the recession and find between 2007 and 2010, employment for 16-to-24-year-old black males fell by approximately 34,300 as a result of the recession; over the same time period, approximately 26,400 lost their jobs as a result of increases in the minimum wage across the 50 states and at the federal level.
Why do young black males suffer unequal harm from minimum wage increases? Even and Macpherson say that they're more likely to be employed in low-skilled jobs in eating and drinking establishments. These are businesses with narrow profit margins and are more adversely affected by increases in minimum wage increases. For 16-to-24-year-old men without a high school diploma, 25 percent of whites and 31 percent of blacks work at an eating and drinking establishment. Compounding the discriminatory burden of minimum wages, not discussed by the authors, are the significant educational achievement differences between blacks and whites.
The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.
Imagine that a worker's skill level is such that he can only contribute $5 worth of value per hour to the employer's output, but the employer must pay him a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, unemployment compensation and health insurance. To hire such a worker would be a losing economic proposition. If the employer could pay that low-skilled worker the value of his skills, he would at least have a job and a chance to upgrade his skill and earn more in the future.
Minimum wage laws have massive political support, including that of black politicians. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America's permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- Walter E. Williams's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Don't confuse liberals with
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:26pm.
Don't confuse liberals with facts. At least they TRY!! At least they CARE!!
It wouldn't be an issue
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:26pm.
Minimum wage wouldn't be an issue for anything unless the cost of living is right out of the stratos. High gas prices, high food prices, high costs of what should be just basic needs make minimum wage a problem.
A person working part time shouldn't have to worry about having enough gas to get to work.
-Jon
$7.25
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:29pm.
Is that what minimum wage is now? Works out to $290 a week, $15,080 a year.
What is an example of a job that should pay $5 an hour?
I guess the article was just
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:32pm.
I guess the article was just to complicated for your mind to comprehend. Read it again.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No no no Bass
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:47pm.
Irishman here is the smarts and all. Ain't nothing going over his pointy head.
We just don't get it. We ain't nowhere as near teh smarts as potato man here. Raise it to $20.01 per hour! That will make everything fair. What could go wrong???
A simple "I don't know" would do
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:10pm.
But as usual...
Fine
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:56pm.
I'll try to dumb this down for you.
Artificial wage inflation affects more than just wages. First, it affects the least qualified in terms of education, experience, or both. Blacks statistically are the least educated, (many reasons for that, but that is another topic for another day), therefor, minimum wages increases affect this group most. Employers for the most part will not hire at a loss to further social equality. They would go out of business.
Now, as to your question as to what jobs are worth $5.00/hr, I would imagine there are many that are worth that and less. Another affect of artificial wage inflation is that it puts pressure on inflation as a whole. If the cost of manufacturing goods increases, and wages are usually, almost always actually, the highest cost of manufacturing goods, then the cost is passed off to consumers. As this happens, then inflation rises, thus getting to a point where $5.00/hr no longer buys what it would without the artificial wage increases. Add to this punishing regulation and taxation, fees, bullying environmental policies, and you see why $5.00/hr makes for a pauper in this country, but might have one living like a king in others.
You really shouldn't act so haughty when your comprehension of a simple article is so lacking.
Again
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:54am.
A simple "I don't know" would do. I asked for one example of a job that should pay $5 an hour.
I didn't even use fancy words so as not to confuse anyone with verbiage outside their comfort zones.
Shut up Dead Angry Black Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:11am.
We don't care about the $5 an hour job you hope to find. You want to move up in the world, do it WITHOUT us. Friggin' whining day after day because you can't find a higher paying job. Sheesh. Hit the Classifieds you milquetoast.
Sigh.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:35pm.
I knew it. One couldn't dumb down the process of discovering who passed gas enough for you to understand.
"He who smealt it, dealt it" is too far above your intellectual capabilities.
Who knew the free market was this hard for you understand? It's not up to us on this board to determine the worth of any job, and it's certainly not the government's business. What jobs pay what are up to employers.
Now will you please stop with the pretense you are asking a relevant question?
No
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:45pm.
You're all supporters of $5 an hour employment. You can't come up with an example? $7.25 an hour is too much you say, so apparently you think some jobs (but no examples) are worth less than this amount.
Dishwashers Maids Lawnmen Wai
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:51pm.
Dishwashers
Maids
Lawnmen
Waiters
Liberal trolls asking pointless questions, (actually, you are worth a lot less).
You make it sound as though it is a zero-sum gain. It's not. It's liquid. A bigger business may be able to afford to pay all of the above positions more than 5/hr. These may come with additional responsibilities, thus the higher wage. It's up to EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER to determine the worth, and therefor the wage, for any particular job.
Finally
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:08pm.
Waiters are not subject to the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. States pay as little as $1.59 an hour.
Maids and landscapers generally don't go on the employer's payroll, but personally I think cleaning toilets is worth more than $5 an hour.
I'll accept dishwasher as a viable answer.
Doesn't matter what you think personally
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:52pm.
What matters is what the market will bear. If enough people are willing to clean toilets for 5/hr, then those wanting more better be very damn good at it, or are shit out of luck.
Tedish,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:16pm.
Here is a 5 minute video for you.
You Didn't Build That.
Trolling web sites looking to raise bile.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:15am.
Trolls get paid 2 Stupidz an hour to to dumb down site after site. The current exchange rate is 10 Troll Stupidz to $1. That comes out to about 20 cents an hour for Dead Zippers to troll at NewBusters.
Oh wait. Dead Zippers wanted an example of $5 an hour job. Trolls are notoriously lazy. They need a TrollBoss whipman whipping them into a frenzy when they start slacking off. TrollBoss Whipmen get 50 Troll Stupidz an hour to ensure trolls like Dead Angry Black Zippers don't slack off.
$5/hr
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:23pm.
Senator's aide, Congressman's aide, legal assistants, CEO, CFO, military personnel, etc...,
I've worked many of times in the last 7 years for less than $5/hr if you look at my salary and figure out how many hours I work and the same could be said of the people listed above in some cases.
You hear about the CEO/Presidents making millions a year but you never hear about the CEO's/President's that put in 80+ hours a week to bring home $400/wk to try to get their companies off the ground or through rough economic cycles. If they are really lucky and work 80+ hours a week for several years and start bringing home $4000/wk the administration will deem them 'Rich' and start confiscating their income because they didn't really earn it like the guy in the welfare office did.
There are several positions like the aides listed above that don't get paid squat while working long hours so someone else can look good. People trying to break into journalism would fall into this category.
Why do these people work for so little money? There is competition for the jobs/business and the market usually pays them somewhere between what they are willing to work for and how much a company is willing to pay. Also, there are opportunities in some cases, like CEOs/Presidents and understudies, for a chance of greater fortune to which these people are willing to sacrifice current pay for the potential of future rewards.
So, to answer your question - every job could be worth $5/hr or none depending on how much someone is willing to pay for the job to be done vs. the number of people willing to do the job at given rates. Econ101.
$5/hour?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:03pm.
Excuse me - are you saying you put in a number of hours that breaks out your hourly pay to less than $5 an hour? Were you on payroll? There are laws in place to stop such abuse in the workplace, and I'm happy to get that info to you if you're interested. Additionally there are laws regarding overtime pay and the number of days inclusive in a full time job classification (hint: If you work more than 5 days you MUST be paid for it).
I think your example of workers in competitive jobs political aides and journalists. I believe many of these low paying jobs are actually unpaid internships, so minimum wage laws do not apply.
Heading out for sushi now. Will return shortly with fish breath.
Tedish, One of the benefits of owning one's own business.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:44pm.
Is that you can pay yourself a buck an hour if you want.
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
You Didn't Build That.
Yes
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:12pm.
And you're not subject to abusive employer practices when you are the employer.
ish, take the jump, could be a corp, with partners like this.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:22am.
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.
Make less than minimum wage and go to jail too boot.
Big Bank
You Didn't Build That.
If you think owners of
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:43pm.
If you think owners of business's don't often work 60 hours or more a week you're wrong. And in the early years of a business, or during a recession like we have now, it can easliy be for less than minimum wage.
But that's a choice business owners make. Just like employees make a choice to work for a wage or find something better.
Exemptions
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:15pm.
"Excuse me - are you saying you put in a number of hours that breaks out your hourly pay to less than $5 an hour? Were you on payroll? There are laws in place to stop such abuse in the workplace, and I'm happy to get that info to you if you're interested."
Are you familiar with the term "salaried exempt?"
Apparently the Irishman has
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:18pm.
Apparently the Irishman has very little knowledge of the real world.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Sointently
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:11pm.
I believe I touched upon the subject in a previous post.
Where?
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:15pm.
I went back and re-read all your posts in this thread and for the life of me I cannot find where you addressed the point of "salaried exempt."
Did you follow the link I provided? You do understand that an employee can be classified salaried exempt without being the owner of the business, right?
I'll make it easy for you: A salaried exempt employee can be required to work overtime and not be paid any additional wages for it. That's how someone's hourly wage could be computed to be at or below your $5/hour mark. Get it now?
You know
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:11pm.
There's a minimum wage for salaried exempt employees too, either $455 per week or $27.63 an hour. Additionally the employee must meet a number of requirements to be considered exempt.
Executives:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be managing the enterprise, or managing a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise;
• The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent; and
• The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees must be given particular weight.
Administrative:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
Professional:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;
• The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and • The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction.
Sales:
• The employee’s primary duty must be making sales (as defined in the FLSA), or obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and
• The employee must be customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business.
Now you may notice similarities between the requirements in each field and how they justify the salary exempt employees status. That being, of course, that they're all high paying positions, in which the majority of employees are in fact making much more than minimum wage. Skills and/or education are required to attain these positions, and this hardly falls under abusive business practices that the minimum wage law was intended to stop.
This also makes little difference in arguing for the end of minimum wage. CEOs and McDonald's trash collectors aren't in competition.
You do realize that in the USA
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:47pm.
The ultimate goal of a company is to have zero employees and unlimited supply of income! This of course rarely happens but every company is duty bound to accomplish this. You on the other hand ,believe that companies are in business to hire YOU!
MightyMouth
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:56pm.
Mr. Shy clicks "Like" for the post above.
- Shy Grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Mouth & MrShy, if elected, pledge 90% unemployment rate...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 3:19pm.
are personally "sickened" by paltry 9% jobless figure. Envision utopian society where fully 10 times that number lead aimless and purposeless lives completely dependent upon the government dole, Christian charity, and the pocket change of corporate tycoons.
;-)
Jer
update: A campaign spokesman for MM & MrShy now advises that all government support will be eliminated, while pointing out that family vegetable patches known as "pauper gardens" as well as school sponsored "bring a can of beans" days should more than make up for the eradication of federal programs.
Dont you know MM, we owe him a livelyhood
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:01pm.
Funny thing is, this Gov cant provide him with one. Libtards think they can steal from the prosperous for ever.
Libtards think the Fed can produce wealth, when in fact their policies destroy it. ALL OF IT!
Is this where you're going with this?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:22pm.
Falling back on the old " it's a liberal and it's a societal leach" argument again?
Okay.
So your not a
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:31pm.
Social leach? Then why are you here playing "look at me, look at me", and whining?
No linked source.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:55pm.
I was going to ask for a link, but found your source in the CFR.
Sigh.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:32pm.
$455.00 per week, REGARDLESS OF HOURS WORKED!!!!. Get it now?
<Golf clap>
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:20pm.
delete duplicate
<Golf clap> for Irish
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:20pm.
None of which answered the question of where did you previously address the issue. Nice try.
And all that info you pasted doesn't negate the fact that a salaried exempt employee can be required to work many hours of overtime with no additional compensation, effectively reducing whatever hourly rate is computed against their earnings. Skills and/or education don't change that fact, either.
I'm wondering if you are seriously unable to grasp the concept or are just being deliberately obtuse to provoke argument. Either way, I'm out.
Ta-da
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:45pm.
2 days old
Skills and/or education don't change that fact, either.
Please read up on salary exemptions. Your post contradicts the law I posted directly from the US Board of Labor.
Model, We belong to the dream of a shared prosperity future.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:19pm.
irish, Bitterly clings to the shared misery class. It's the green thing to do,save the planet.
He hangs out here/multitasking er facebookin, where no links are needed.
Totally Incapable of ever clicking/comprehending on any link in here NB-2 land.
A Lib Learn something !!!! ROTFLMAO.
Oh boy! can he cut and paste, hose us down with words. Ted just keeps plugging away er unplugging away.. to blather land, oh while skipping the question again. Typical
Maybe NB-2 links are NSFW in Hollywood, CA.
You Didn't Build That.
Funny
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:17pm.
I've been waiting for your reply on the evolution thread after you made that ridiculous claim regarding the false science of Professor Michael Behe.
Could be the least relevant link of all time.
ish,That's a hoot coming from the champion thread ditcher.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:16pm.
thanks for the link....yawn
You Didn't Build That.
Is it just me,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:23pm.
Do all libs whine perpetually?
I've been accused of many things
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:26pm.
But you're the first to accuse me of ditching a thread. The overall consensus says I have too hard a time leaving a thread.
but that works both ways for a lib.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:31pm.
He is either in or out depending on the conversation. Libs can take any position that sounds good to them. And the conservs, of course laugh at this, as we should.
Easily defined
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:42am.
That's because you have no backbone.
$5 Irishman
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 3:01pm.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It was my decision to work those hours so the law does not apply. The situation required the work to be done but no one had to tell me work to get the job done. Now, I am in a position where I don't have to work more than 60 hrs a week and often only 45. I could have complained but I would still be on the bottom half of the ladder looking up. It is not always about the dollar - it is sometimes about commitment and the creation of opportunity.
As far as minimum wage (MW) goes, the summer after the increase to 7.25 the news media were lamenting the lack of jobs for young people and never made the connection. The concept of a minimum wage is that people will earn more because they can't be paid less than MW. The reality is that when the MW is increased significantly less people get paid their value and more people get paid the MW with the added benefit of fewer jobs.
The ripple effect and company moral has a great deal to do with what actually happens when MW increases significantly. I had 15 employees making between 6.50-7.24 before the increase with four more people making between 7.25-8.50. When 14 people were bumped up to 7.25 (one was let go and later when the next two left they were never replaced) the people with greater experience and responsibilities questioned why they should not get a 'raise' as well since they were still more skilled, experienced and had been with the company longer. Smaller raises were to come but not before the removal of some benefits and restructuring to transfer a mid-level supervisor. This was all expected and at least partially planned for as soon as it was announced that MW would be increased. (Disclaimer: The numbers should be close but I don't swear to their exactness - any difference would not change the point trying to be demonstrated.) This happened any companies all across the nation.
If things don't change with healthcare we will see a similar effect nationwide as well.
Also, the jobs listed were not all volunteer jobs there are many paid jobs in those categories. These are some of the hardest driven people in the work force and a majority of their compensation is the opportunity their jobs offer them.
Irishman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:28pm.
The purpose of paying someone is not to provide them with a source of income. The purpose of a wage/salary is to find a means of exchanging labor for a commodity the laborer will accept. Those people who desire to earn more money will be motivated to increase their job skills or education.
Those minimum wage jobs are what keeps my children motivated in school, because as we used to say when they brought home bad report cards, McDonald's is always hiring.
Yes, I understand
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:27pm.
And the government says that $7.25 is the minimum employers should pay an employee. Less able workers are guaranteed a minimum wage so they can simply survive, so while you can make the argument that your kids deserve less than $7.25, I would argue the law is not in place for them.
Hogwash
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:36pm.
The minimum wage is merely a political ploy for democrats to get votes. Nothing more.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Why is it a democrat thing?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:46pm.
The minimum wage law was put into place to stop sweatshop owners from abusing their workers. Considering sweatshops are still operating in the US today, what makes you think lifting the law wouldn't make things worse?
What was Pelosi's very first "accomplishment"
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 1:04pm.
....as Speaker?
How many times have Republicans proposed increasing the minimum wage?
What makes me think lifting the law wouldn't make things worse? I have studied economics at the graduate level, plus I have actually worked in the real world.
The minimum wage is merely a political ploy to get poor and dumb voters who know nothing about economics to believe that democrats "care". It's pure crap, of course, and suckers buy it all the time.
Like you. I rest my case.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It is hogwash & BS---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:26pm.
as all Irish really wants to do is bemoan abusive employer tactics and talk about sweat shops.
Liberal BS, to be sure.
MD
No
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:26pm.
I see someone making $7.25 an hour and wonder how he could possibly live off of that, let alone support a family.
Irishman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:35pm.
So maybe he's not supposed to live off of it, maybe he's supposed to get some training/job skills and do whatever it takes to get a better job.
hy should a dishwasher or a receptionist at a hair salon earn more than $7.25 and hour?
Why should they make less?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:47pm.
This is why there is a minimum wage. So people desperate for work can not be taken advantage of by employers. Say an employer needs a secretary and only wants to pay $200 a week for 60 hours minimum, and the candidate is so desperate for work they take the job. You don't think this is abusive? If the employer is so busy he needs a full time employee he should have the funds to pay a reasonable wage. The government says that's $7.25 an hour.
More nonsense
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:53pm.
The reason there is a minimum wage is because libtards refuse to play on a level playing field. You are paid what your worth. If you only make me 18k a year, why should I be required to pay you 50K? None of you liberals can do simple math, none of you!
Do you even read what you type?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:58pm.
Who's forcing you to pay anyone $50K a year??? $7.25 works out to just over $15K a year, that's what the government is saying.
That, my friend, is simple math.
The dollar amount dont matter
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:09pm.
You would be paid what you were worth, or settle for.
Question for the economic wizard:
Do you know what the biggest contributor to inflation is? No, of course you dont! I will try to educate you, try, I aint no miracle worker.
When the fed launders our money, it become worth less. The more they touch, the worse it gets. ALWAYS!
Who?
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:44am.
You just said you shouldn't be forced to pay someone $50K a year. Explain who is making you do that. Or was that just something you were hoping to slip past me?
Who....is missing the point?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:50am.
That'd be you.
Another question for the econimic wizard
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 9:15am.
Should I be able to reasonably expect you to give me a positive return on your wage?
Because Gov intervention often makes this impossible, Union's further complicate this. This is why businesses move overseas.
You libs are always worried about how much money. The value of money is far more important. Our current Admin admits they want to create a certain amount of inflation? Do you know why? Of course you dont, your a drone.
The fed produces no wealth, they destroy it.
Oh boy
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 9:22am.
Is this another supply and demand lesson? Oh wait, that was me schooling you.
Fat chance
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:26pm.
Is this another supply and demand lesson?
This type of attitude, is why you missed it the first 12 times someone tried to teach it to you.
I think were done, you fail!
Irishman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:10pm.
Did I say they should be paid less?
As far as your example, if an employer only wants to pay $200 for a 60 hour work week what kind of employee will he get? One who has no skills and no work ethic, or that employee would have found work somewhere else. Employers pay based on the workers job skills and experience.
There are also markets where employers are so desparate for workers they pay above the standard. Nurses in my area get hiring bonus's just to sign on. Isn't that an injustice to the employer?
No, it's simply how the market works.
Okay
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:49am.
Do you think it's that simple? What's unemployment right now? 9%? 10%? Times like this are when employers take advantage most because they know how desperate people are. If you have nothing and your best opportunity is to take a job at $200 a week you're still screwed. What do you think the options are? You can't quit because there's nothing else out there, and no one is making the employer pay a fair wage because it would be too hard on his business, one so successful the owner can't get along without a 60 hour a week receptionist.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would support eliminating the minimum wage.
Irishman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:46pm.
Times like this are when employers don't have the money to pay employees what the employees would like. Raising the minimum wage means employers will have to cut the number of employees and give them more work because they can't afford to pay higher wages.
Why are you so convinced business's are out to cheat their employees?
Exactly, Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 1:05pm.
Which is why in the boom times, money is thrown at great employees, as are cool bennies like car allowances, etc. Oh yeah, and the no-compete contract, too. I hate those, but I've signed quite a few.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Claptrap
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:47pm.
Wages decide price, always,,,, except when the Fed intervenes. Labor is the end cost of ALL tasks. The skilled get paid more. It provides incentive for the young, and the less fortunate. When it is subsidized, it cheapens all wealth! At the rate we pay our workers to sit at home, or hire as part of the problem, you would think folks would wise up?
But then there is you
Me what?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:54pm.
You think I was supporting multiple unemployment extensions for anyone at all? I know how the system is abused and you've got a serious mental defect if you think I support that in any way.
Wages decide price.
What are you getting at? Price of what specifically?
Price of what specifically?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:59pm.
My point exactly,,,,, the economic illiterate should not pretend they are. Holy cow
Not to bright, but always presuming triumph
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:52am.
Silly boy. Supply and demand. Say it with me. Supply and demand. Supply effects price. Demand effects price. Revenue effects price. A number of factors effect price.
If these are the arguments you're going to continue with I'm going to substitute myself for a 7th grader with minimal knowledge of the effects of supply and demand.
ish, How does Revenue effect price?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:08pm.
Hay I made enough money, now all my products are free.
Looks like a winning plan to knock Walmart off of # 1.
Even GM government motors must follow this graph, so simple a 7th. grader gets it..
EDIT: Found it! Here is your revenue effect price, graph.
You Didn't Build That.
Without even having to research it
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:38pm.
When a product is developed the costs may be extraordinary, so the initial release of the product will have a higher price to offset development costs. As the company recoups those losses through increased sales the price will drop.
Play monopoly much!
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:48pm.
As the company recoups those losses through increased sales the price will drop.
promises promises
Sounds like 0bamacare.
You Didn't Build That.
perhaps a little research
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 3:10pm.
Yes, assuming, which is usually the case, production costs are lowered due to greater production with little to no increase in fixed costs. As a point because I can't tell your exact meaning - it is the reduction in manufacturing costs coupled with the number of items consumers will purchase at a given price that brings the price down. If enough consumers was willing to pay the higher price then prices would not fall - think NIKE atheletic shoes. The fact that the company has recouped its R&D money only has an effect if the company financials are in such a position that it can not immediately offer the product at optimum price. Usually the limitation on lowering the price is set by manufacturing ability of a new line.
Like I said
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 5:04pm.
Many different factors determine prices, not just wages.
Look at the iPod. When it was first released it was something like $600 for a 4GB model. Today it costs $249 for a 160GB iPod. Memory costs, a key factor in determining the cost of an iPod have dropped drastically over the past decade. Like my previous example, development costs no longer factor in after the first 100 million or so units have been sold. While I'm certain manufacturing costs have changed, I can't say for certain in which direction in the case of the iPod.
Oh great, so now we know about the I-pod
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 5:59pm.
Why didnt folks just wait?
How about you explain about Fuel, Food, and Automobiles. Why do the cost of these increase? Hint, it has little to do with supply and demand, and more to do with socialism.
Um, wages?
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:48pm.
I believe you stated wages as your final answer sometime yesterday.
Actualy, if you were paying attention
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:13pm.
You would had understood I said wages SHOULD dictate price. But today they dont. Know why? Of course you dont, your a drone
Boudin, Skip Food ,Clothing and Shelter, go with fringe stuff.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 7:20pm.
Wham-O
So how many folk are making hula-hoops now?
Apple is surfing the fad wave and staying on the cutting edge. Intel does a great job too.
The electronic field has been on the cutting edge for over 40 years... Old stuff along with the companies that blew billions on assembly lines get flushed in a nanosecond.
Fads come and go... Food, clothing and shelter will always be with us.
Some day soon that I'pod will have a black-screen-of-death.
No amount of steaming or frying will ever make that sucker edible.
ethanol use was raised from 4.95 bil. to 5.0 bil bu.
That is MILLIONS OF TONS, of food.
Sign up for hand outs, Sale ends in 3 weeks.
Payments will not be calculated and made until after September 2012.
Paper blizzard and a coerced gov time vacuum, poof goes a 1/2 a day. @ ZERO dollars per hour.
You Didn't Build That.
Your right UCW
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:15pm.
He did say he wants to debate like a 7th grader? Guess I am out of my league here.
Claptrap, &---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:59pm.
precisely the kind of liberal bullsh*t "feel good about myself" insanity that has this country so damned far behind the eight ball, financially speaking.
Liberals + political power = economic hard times.
Always has; always will.
MD
The CBC
Submitted by mom_rox on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:12pm.
I'd love to see Dr. Williams, or the authors, present this study to the Congressional Black Caucus.
Would never happen. Either
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:09pm.
Would never happen. Either the CBC would not show up or they would walk out.
Can't let facts get in the way of fabrication.