1
   

Is a minimum wage necessary?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 03:34 am
Linkat wrote:
Ditto Thomas - My basic premise is that minimum wage (in most cases) will not have an impact - other than the possibility of people being laid off.

You "ditto" something I haven't said. I said that if the minimum wage has an effect, it is to raise the wage of some workers at the cost of laying off other workers. I also said that, depending on people's social values and their view of the alternatives, they may find the minimum wage worth raising, consistent with basic economics.

I'm just not one of those people, because I think we have a better choice: to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 03:49 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Here's an interesting LINK where you can find out your own city's stats. Give it a try, and tell us what you found that you were unaware of before looking at the stats of your city.
My "City", or cities more accurately, doesn't even qualify... I guess because the population is so low. Our county, Ozaukee County, seems to fair pretty well against the average, though.

Also, Thomas is being generous in not blasting you for the stats you're pretending equate to minimum wage.

PS. Where and when in Spain? Sounds like fun. Did I miss a link?

Thomas, I still think you may have struck brilliance with the EITC alternative and love your use of the word "we". Does this mean you'll be joining us?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 04:47 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas, I still think you may have struck brilliance with the EITC alternative

Thanks, but the brilliance isn't mine. It belongs to Milton Friedman, who came up with the general concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman proposed a "negative tax rate" on any income less than a certain minimum. This would have ensured a minimum income for everyone, including people who may be better off not working, such as single moms. But subsidies, with no strings attached, for people who don't work, weren't politically feasible at the time. So as an alternative, Congress enacted the EITC during the Ford administration. Clinton greatly expanded it, encouraged by some brilliant liberal economists he had hired. Brad deLong was one of them, and he has an interesting article on the EITC here.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
and love your use of the word "we". Does this mean you'll be joining us?

I will, but I'm still procrastinating. It's not that I'm having second thoughts, I just procrastinate a lot.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 06:03 am
Thomas wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas, I still think you may have struck brilliance with the EITC alternative

Thanks, but the brilliance is Milton Friedman's, who came up with the general concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman proposed a "negative tax rate" on any income less than a certain minimum. This would have ensured a minimum income for everyone, including people who may be better off not working, such as single moms. But subsidies, with no strings attached, for people who don't work, weren't politically feasible at the time. So as an alternative, Congress enacted the EITC during the Ford administration. Clinton greatly expanded it, encouraged by some brilliant liberal economists he hired. Brad deLong was one of them, and he has an interesting article on the EITC here.
Saved the link, for now, thanks. I'm not a fan of big government but as big as it is I can think of worse things to do than feed people. Taxes may very well strangle out my first restaurant... second only to payroll in expenses... but so it goes. I'm still learning. The second is a better model and is doing much better. Number three will definitely be closer to this one than that.


Thomas wrote:
I will, but I'm still procrastinating. It's not that I'm having second thoughts, I just procrastinate a lot.
Exxxxcellent. Were you offered that job you were looking at?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 06:12 am
Shorter than I guessed it would be, and very informative. Thanks again.
(A much better explanation for your earlier question, Osso).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:12 am
Thomas wrote:
Sorry, CI, but I don't understand how you get from "less than $9 an hour" to "around the minimum wage". " Between 1 and 1.75 times X" isn't the same as "around X".


I'm a bit confused too, but the last sentence seems to imply those numbers represented the minimum wage earners of $5.15 to $2.85.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:46 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Sorry, CI, but I don't understand how you get from "less than $9 an hour" to "around the minimum wage". " Between 1 and 1.75 times X" isn't the same as "around X".


I'm a bit confused too, but the last sentence seems to imply those numbers represented the minimum wage earners of $5.15 to $2.85.

The minimum wage is 5.15. 1.75 times 5.15 is $9.01. Your post had referred to people whose wage is less than $9. (But more than the minimum wage, though you didn't explicitly say that part.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:51 am
The confusion:
According to numerous sources, approximately 30 million workers between the ages of 18 and 64 earn less than $9 an hour in their jobs -- a full-time annual income of $18,800, assuming a full-time (40 hour week), 52-week work schedule -- the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four. These are folks making somewhere around the minimum wage ($5.15 an hour for nontipped workers, and $2.13 an hour for tipped workers).
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:51 am
Sorry Thomas I think you misunderstood my statement - no impact meaning net. As you see I mentioned immediately after people being laid off.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:58 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
The confusion:
According to numerous sources, approximately 30 million workers between the ages of 18 and 64 earn less than $9 an hour in their jobs -- a full-time annual income of $18,800, assuming a full-time (40 hour week), 52-week work schedule -- the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four. These are folks making somewhere around the minimum wage ($5.15 an hour for nontipped workers, and $2.13 an hour for tipped workers).

If you think this is an internally consistent statement, your understanding of the word "around" is very different from mine. But it's not a very deep point, and I won't dwell on it any further.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:01 am
Thomas, I'm not the one that composed the statement; I just posted it in response to a question by another participant. How you interpret is up to you.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:28 am
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
65 years and over: 12.5% (male 15,542,288/female 21,653,879)


So that's why c.i. is befuddled.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 10:27 pm
August 4, 2006
Wage Bill Dies; Senate Backs Pension Shift
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:40 pm
If Wal-Mart if forced to pay their Chicago workers $10/hour plus
$3/hr in benefits, they'll leave the Chicago area.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:57:59