NYT endorses Obama's minimum wage proposal, but called for scrapping it in 1987....

with unemployment among the youth at an all-time high, a higher min wage (the huge bulk of those who earn it being young unskilled workers) will only result in higher unemployment.

When you raise the COST of labor to $9, but do nothing to raise its VALUE to $9, you end up with job cuts. If the employees skills were worth $9 in the market, they would have been paid that much, but since they are not, they are paid a lower amount.

Now, if the min wage was raised to $9, why would a business continue to hire someone whose skills have a market value of only $7.50? They would just as soon fire the person they paid $7.50 than pay them $9 while their skills are only worth only $7.50, and then hire someone else who has the skills commensurate with a $9 pay rate, since now they are forced by law to pay that amount...even if the employer does not need that higher skill set right away, why pay more for an unskilled person, when you can hire someone for the same pay with higher skill that then you can employ to do additional work that the skills allow them to do. The result: HIGHER unemployment for the young and unskilled workers....

it really is not rocket science...basic logical analysis and 'put yourself in their shoes' logic is all that is needed for this concept to be understood....however, the ideologically driven either lack that ability, or purposefully blind themselves to the logic.

Quote from 124nic8 : Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

cost of living is irrelevant...the VAST majority of those working at minimum wage are students and young people who are working to make some extra pocket money, NOT to support a family or pay a mortgage. Most often they are still living under their parent's homes and paychecks. While there are some who are supporting a family, they are a miniscule fraction of those working minimum wage.

Quote from Radeck : cost of living is irrelevant...the VAST majority of those working at minimum wage are students and young people who are working to make some extra pocket money, NOT to support a family or pay a mortgage. Most often they are still living under their parent's homes and paychecks. While there are some who are supporting a family, they are a miniscule fraction of those working minimum wage.

I gave a reason why it should NOT be higher, not one for making it higher.

Did you not read the post to which I was responding?

And the COL is most definitley relevant to those making min wage.

Quote from Radeck : it really is not rocket science...basic logical analysis and 'put yourself in their shoes' logic is all that is needed for this concept to be understood....however, the ideologically driven either lack that ability, or purposefully blind themselves to the logic.

it's not really rocket science to look and see that what you're spouting isn't true:

Quote : Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/pub...013-02.pdf

Quote from politicaljunkie : Editors?

Fair enough...

Quote from thikthird : it's not really rocket science to look and see that what you're spouting isn't true: http://www.cepr.net/documents/pub...013-02.pdf

From the WSJ article:

Quote : University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."

Go look at youth/minority unemployment rates in europe where the min wage levels are even higher if you you believe me or that guy from UCI.

Quote from 124nic8 : How about we offer training in addition to this higher motivation to get a job?

Because unemployed low skilled people need more motivation than the desire to earn a paycheck?

Training has nothing to do with it. There will always be low skilled people and there will always be low skill jobs. One of the most important ways people get skills is by working low pay jobs.

Quote from Danman114 : Because unemployed low skilled people need more motivation than the desire to earn a paycheck?

Because a larger paycheck is not higher motivation?

Quote : Training has nothing to do with it.

And yet many unemployed get training so they can get a job....

Quote : There will always be low skilled people and there will always be low skill jobs. One of the most important ways people get skills is by working low pay jobs.

Only "important" for slightly higher "skilled" jobs....

Quote from thikthird : is this really the argument you want to make?

So you don't have a good answer then?

Quote from 124nic8 : Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living? Adjusted for inflation, it's still lower than it was in the '60s.

If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more? What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?

Quote from Radeck : The result: HIGHER unemployment for the young and unskilled workers....

And higher priced fast food!

Quote from darkfrog : So you don't have a good answer then?

oh i do, but i mean really, what's the point of asking such a dumb rhetorical question?

here are the answers. policy-wise, despite mounds of evidence that shows that hiking the minimum wage doesn't effect unemployment, there is still an initial shock to the system. better to keep that low. eventually a $15 an hour minimum wage would be great, but you'd need time and incremental raises to do that. politics-wise, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the side that wants the worst for the most. i mean, you have to go through hell and high water to raise it a nickel. sometimes you're restrained by reality.

Quote from darkfrog : If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more?

Who said the government could do that (besides you)?

Quote : What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?

Nothing. But it does have relevance to the level of those wages.

Quote from rrc06 : Fair enough... From the WSJ article: Go look at youth/minority unemployment rates in europe where the min wage levels are even higher if you you believe me or that guy from UCI.

read what the paper i posted says about the neumark study:

Quote : The Neumark and Wascher review, however, is considerably more subjective and arguably less relevant to the United States than the two meta-studies discussed earlier. Only 52 of the 102 studies reviewed by Neumark and Wascher analyzed U.S. data. Of these, Neumark and Wascher designated 19 as "most credible," five of which were their own studies. 19 The Neumark and Wascher (2006) review also excludes several important papers that were not published until after the review was completed

https://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101

"So if going to a $9 minimum wage is such a good idea, why not go to a $40 minimum wage?

Is there ever too much of a good thing? I think for most things the answer is yes."

Quote from darkfrog : If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more? What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?

Or turn it around. Why not create a system where people work for nothing (lower wages create jobs, right?). In exchange, they get free room, board, medical care, and retirement for life, in exchange for irrevocably losing the ability to set the terms of their own employment. Think of the jobs we'd create then!