J.C.MacSwell

Nasty fellow. He's a bit of a political bigot. Makes assumptions about Democrats that often aren't true.

I would allow that there could have been regions in 2010 that could have sustained 10 years of 7% increases without excessive detriment...but not forever. Countrywide the harm would have come well before the 10 years, starting for the most part in economically disadvantaged areas. Might be both. The bastard voted Republican.

Thanks. Yours also.

Sure.

You have an inexperienced skill set and time. You decide to trade that time for $10/hr wages to your neighbour next door,(who owns a bike shop) and buy a boat from the neighbour across the street. I come in and insist you cannot do that for less than $15/hr....which your next door neighbour is unwilling to pay. Fortunately, since you're such a nice guy and can see the greater good, you accept that....and stay home and play video games with your time...even though you'd rather be working at the bike shop then boating. Unfortunately not everyone is like you...some of those bastards would rather be left alone.

You own a modest cottage. You decide to sell the cottage to your neighbour next door and buy a boat from your neighbour across the street. I come in and demand that no cottage can be sold for less than the price of a 50% better than modest cottage. You think, rightfully so, as do your neighbours, that I'm an idiot...except I'm the government and have a gun. Do you get this? (of course not, but if you lived in Canada I could ask you to have a conservative friend explain it to you...you'd have beers...understand it a bit...then still go vote NDP, which is absolutely fine)

Not entirely. You are taking away an inexperienced individual's ability to compete on price. If he can only command $10, because he is, say, 30% less productive due to inexperience, and willing to work for $10, but you insist he not be allowed to do that...then you owe him a job....or maybe he's rightfully pissed and, unrightfully, steals Swansont's new Amazon bike....which he bought at the lowest price because competition works for him. By all means be skeptical (you pointed out a good reason to be)...just don't assume it's flawed.

Straw man much? I argued you can't raise it by 7% a year in perpetuity, when the inflation rate is significantly less. I've nothing against raising it by 7% a year until it is optimal for the region, and continuing to adjust it as necessary. That's a free enterprise scenario, when that's the case a minimum wage is not required. Funny, but you know what else happens a lot? A kid getting his first job at minimum wage that wouldn't even be considered if it had to be $15/hr... From that: "In the end, minimum wage hikes rob young people of the opportunity to gain work experience that helps them develop basic skills and earn higher levels of income. Indeed, research finds that earning the minimum wage is often a stepping stone to higher paid work."

No. In economically depressed areas the money would tend to go further for the individual and do more for the region. Similarly, I think everyone should get the same (or choose welfare which would generally be more, but for that you need means tests etc), Most of us here (just a guess) would ultimately be net payers through the taxes required, but no means test and associated costs, and no stigma for getting it. It wouldn't eliminate the need for a welfare safety net, but would reduce the need for some of it, and would have no potential for clawback.

If they base it on adding 7% from a minimum wage that is sub optimum, what makes you think they can do that every year, and maintain the "little or no change" in employment claimed? 7% is well above the inflation rate of the last 10 years. I can understand a reasonable argument can be made for increasing minimum wage a reasonable amount, even if there was some detriment to some industries. I might be making it here to a laissez faire capitalist if they posted here, though I think a mix of UBI and regionally set minimum wage would get better results for workers and small business owners. In fact I think UBI and minimum wage.set properly, work well together with UBI doing more for depressed regions (it doesn't just help individuals). Ask yourself this: If you want to buy a bicycle you might be willing to pay a small premium to support your local bike shop. How much more would a $15/hr minimum wage add to the cost of the bike at Amazon,vs how much more added at a bike shop? Maybe the kid working there on his first job making less than $10/hr isn't getting exploited, but might eventually want to open a shop of his own, or take part in some other business after getting some experience despite not feeling cut out for more schooling. Maybe the bike shop heading out of business was not a sweat shop after all. ...then ask yourself who creates more net jobs, the Amazons or small businesses? I read them. Did you? How sure are you that they support your claims?

Let's look at how they come to this conclusion: So they cite a 10% increase as only reducing employment in low wage industries by 0.5 to 1.2 percent and a 7% increase as having "little or no change". And they use this to conclude that an increase of over 100% must be fine. Where did they study economics? Have they ever come across supply and demand curves?

15/hr minimum will capture everyone making less, not just those currently at minimum wage. (exemptions aside) Of course it would still differ, for a multitude of reasons. It's really not a good comparison, morally or economically.

First of all it's not slavery. It really should not be compared to it. Second, if you are making a moral argument for it, you can't use that as evidence that $15/hr across the US will work. In fact I will repeat you can't have evidence that 15/hr will work in any State (I also can't have evidence that it won't work....it simply hasn't been tried. All the links we've posted only have projections, or evidence where much more marginal increases will work. Third, if you want to make it a moral argument...if it doesn't work...and hurts poor areas the most after you've insisted that no one without the ability to find themselves a $15/hr job is allowed to work....then you've hurt every State where it doesn't work and there ability to support social programs and welfare....where now they would need it more than ever. There are only about 15 States with minimum wages over $10/hr, and none at $15. Yet almost half the States have Democrat Governors. Maybe evil is not the only reason none of them have moved it to $15 already?

Thank You I was starting to feel like a broken record

What makes you think I'm suggest that? Because I pointed out that there is in fact a threshold? (That was my only claim during most of this thread....and though as you say no one disagrees with it, I seemed to get plenty of flak for it) Or because now I've argued that $15/hr would be detrimental in substantial areas? Here is exactly the most that has been tried in real life. The minimum wages of each state: State 2020 Minimum Wage 2021 Minimum Wage Alabama $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) Alaska $10.19 $10.34 Arizona $12.00 $12.15 Arkansas $10.00 $11.00 California $13.00 $14.00* Colorado $12.00 $12.32 Connecticut $12.00 $13.00 (effective 8/1/21) Delaware $9.25 $10.25 Washington D.C. $15.00 $15.00 Florida $8.56 $10.00 (effective 9/30/21) Georgia $5.15 (Employers subject to Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage.) $5.15 (Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage) Hawaii $10.10 $10.10 Idaho $7.25 $7.25 Illinois $10.00 $11.00 Indiana $7.25 $7.25 Iowa $7.25 $7.25 Kansas $7.25 $7.25 Kentucky $7.25 $7.25 Louisiana $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) Maine $12.00 $12.15 Maryland $11.00 $11.75** Massachusetts $12.75 $13.50 Michigan $9.65 $9.65 Minnesota $10.00 $10.08*** Mississippi $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) Missouri $9.45 $10.30 Montana $8.65 $8.75 Nebraska $9.00 $9.00 Nevada $8.00 $8.75 (effective 7/1/21)**** New Hampshire $7.25) $7.25 New Jersey $11.00 $12.00***** New Mexico $9.00 $10.50 New York $11.80 $12.50****** North Carolina $7.25 $7.25 North Dakota $7.25 $7.25 Ohio $8.70 $8.80 Oklahoma $7.25 $7.25 Oregon $12.00 $12.75 (effective 7/1/21)****** Pennsylvania $7.25 $7.25 Rhode Island $10.50 $11.50 South Carolina $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) South Dakota $9.30 $9.45 Tennessee $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) $7.25 (Federal, no state minimum) Texas $7.25 $7.25 Utah $7.25 $7.25 Vermont $10.96 $11.75 Virginia $7.25 $9.50 (effective 5/1/21) Washington $13.50 $13.69 West Virginia $8.75 $8.75 Wisconsin $7.25 $7.25 Wyoming $5.15 (Employers subject to Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the Federal minimum wage.) $5.15 (Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act must pay the $7.25 Federal minimum wage) Congratulations on so clearly seeing one side of it. Now do the direct cost of the $31,000 to the employer. Don't forget employers payroll taxes, Workers Compensation, Health Insurance, and don't forget all the statutory holidays that get paid but aren't actually worked. The real costs are well above $15/hr, without even getting to other overhead and support for the wage earner, including the costs of the brick and mortar. Look again at the current minimum wages. You can't provide data for trying anything higher in those states. Even most of your optimistic projections are based on more reasonable increases than moving everything to $15. To $15 per hour? From the current $7.25 in many States?(40 % of them) From the current less than $10 in the majority of States? (70% of them) Where is your evidence for this? You might want to check the title of the thread.

If you had pointed out in the physics section that a vehicle had a speed at which it could not maintain traction around a curve, I doubt I would have badgered you to tell me what specific speed without being willing to describe the curve and the coefficient of friction of the the road....despite you pointing out that the speed is not the same for every road curve in America... and even while agreeing with the statement.....and even if what I felt were a despicable group from Canada often claimed cars were safe at any speed... ...but maybe that's just me There's a point at which a deal cannot rationally take place...it has to work for both parties...in this case between employer and employee. Often that would be true. On topic can the difference be made up by a better mix of UBI with perhaps lower minimum wage, or adjusted for economic condition of each region? My contention being that UBI would often help poorer regions more so than restricting deals between employees than employers.

Since you're struggling with this and despite the fact you have refused to answer the where and defined "widespread job loss": I'll still answer: I'm confident a minimum wage of $20/hr, in terms of 2020 USD (so don't claim inflation will mitigate even part of it), would trigger widespread job loss, right across a substantial part of the US, and trigger widespread job losses. My estimate would be across a majority of the US. (I can provide a link if necessary, where yes, JC MacSwell makes that estimate) Any of that making anyone think $15 must be anywhere close to universally optimal with me then (even for workers currently making less)...I don't know what to tell them. You're looking at substantial job losses and/or reduced hours, and/or retreat for many to an underground economy. But you meant well...and those conservatives are dishonest.

As I've tried to convey....it depends on where, and what factors you are willing to put in place to mitigate the negatives. Fortunately I don't carry around that baggage. I realize it's Politics 101 for much of the US....for good reasons and bad, but most of the World hasn't taken the course. So perhaps read what I'm saying rather than reading into it.

FFS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT OR NOT? This should be a simple concept...except: ...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

State where, and define "widespread job loss", and I'll hazard a guesstimate. Then we can look at it, scratch our heads, or point and laugh at it, because it's not actually needed. I already stated this: I'll be happy to attempt to support that $15USD would be detrimental in many areas, without other significant changes to mitigate the damage.

I doubt it. That doesn't mean it will have no effect. You can't keep adding them on forever, inflation and economic growth notwithstanding.

You wrote and quoted: What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would “quickly kill jobs”? Which was my point. I made no other assertion.... Why should I pick a number? I've clearly argued it shouldn't be the same everywhere. I simply made a point, which you seem to agree with...yet somehow have a problem with the way I made it. It did in some areas, and again, because the increases were probably reasonable, the net effect may have been positive.

You mentioned $200 an hour. Why? What evidence do you have that it would have a detrimental effect? Maybe because it is obvious at that level? Is it not equally obvious that a $15USD minimum wage would be detrimental in some countries By definition....unless you believe no level of minimum wage could have that effect. Again, you mentioned $200, so you get it, do you not? Sorry. I've been busy explaining stuff you already understand. Simply because you are attacking what you think is my "rhetoric" rather than questioning my actual argument. "In the end, minimum wage hikes rob young people of the opportunity to gain work experience that helps them develop basic skills and earn higher levels of income. Indeed, research finds that earning the minimum wage is often a stepping stone to higher paid work. But focusing solely on the employment numbers misses other negative effects from minimum wage hikes. Employers also respond by cutting back on hours, providing less on-the-job training, and giving employment priority to the most productive workers." https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wage-increases-wont-solve-poverty#:~:text=Poverty can increase because minimum,young workers in the family.&text=While the more productive workers,result of fewer employment opportunities. Little downside. I wonder where that "little downside" occurs? Obviously not in some affluent areas, where McDonalds can just raise there prices as their competitors all do the same and deal with the same increases. Maybe McDonalds does get effected at the margins, and doesn't open that extra store in a less affluent area (but what evidence of that get's measured?) So evidence of small minimum wage increases, which typically are adjustments to it being set too low, can be shown to have a net benefit (more positive than negative)...so bold increases must be even better?...what evidence is there for it? Where have bold increases been tried? What is a bold increase? To me it is dictating $15USD an hour...right across the board...even if it's beneficial in some areas, and it would only represent a small increase in some areas. Put it in place where an employee and employer can only deal with a lesser amount and you owe someone a job, and maybe someone a business....but you meant well so let them deal with that. Often they have to go "underground" at least to some extent. https://www.dw.com/en/minimum-wage-fuels-germanys-underground-economy/a-18231218 Experts warn of a resurgence in Germany's underground economy after years of contraction. A new study shows that the introduction of a nationwide minimum wage is driving more workers into the shadows.

For the same reason poorer countries shouldn't set a minimum wage at 15 USD equivalent, which would quickly kill jobs. Obviously making marginal increases has a slower effect (good or bad, depending on whether it is already set too high or too low) but is it not clear that the optimum minimum wage is not one size fits all? Of course it isn't. I defined this particular "high enough" as "few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs." The point is there is a need to strike a balance, and that the factors that effect it are not the same everywhere. They are often doing most or a substantial part of the work. Do you not suspect higher minimum wages will effect their earnings and often necessitate working even longer hours, while reducing those of their employees? That's assuming they stay in business.

Sorry to hear that Beecee. My mother in law still lives on her own, despite a few falls, at 89, and I've supported her decision to do so. She's said she's determined to make it to 90. Tonight she was in especially good spirits and we joked about her making it to the point of technology having her live forever. But the risks of living alone are understood.