>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:46:35 GMT, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:>>>
>>
>>>>And given that only a portion of workers work minimum
>>>>wage, only some products may go up.
>>>
>>>I do not wish to knock anybody, but minimum wage is a "safety
>>>net" subsidy. This is pretty clear; almost nobody actually works for
>>>minimum wage ( outside of very poor regions ). Around here, there's
>>>a defacto minimum wage of about $7.50.
>>
>>
>> Of course its a safety net issue.
>
> But that's why an increase does not generally create unemployment.
> And as subsidies go, it's one of my favorites - it helps
> people who might not otherwise seek employment.
Competition for minimum-wage jobs is already pretty keen, and you
characterize inducing more workers into the market for it as a good
thing?
>
> I'm optomistic about these things because I spent my early
> 20's during the "Repo Man" era of the early '80s. Turned
> out fine - but it was looking *scary* then.
I remember the 80s. I was better off then. But I spent most of them in
school.
>
> That's not 14 million at minimum wage - that's 14 million
> at a wage level expected to be perturbed by minimum wage.
Oh, I estimate almost 150 million workers at a wage level that will be
perturbed by minimum wage. I would bet a nickel right now that there
isn't a single person in the US who doesn't spend at least some portion
of his income on goods or services provided by minimum-wage workers.
Nearly all restaurant wait staff -- even at the most high-end
restaurants -- are paid minimum wage. Most hotel staff, too. Labor isn't
a large cost for a hotel, but for a restaurant it's pretty significant.
In fact, it's probably safe to say most restaurants will have to either
raise prices or cut jobs to stay in business. So, nearly everyone who
goes out to dinner at least once a year can expect their real income to
be affected within the first year a minimum wage hike takes effect.
> I do have to wonder if the statement "A minimum wage increase would
> help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers."
> is true, though.
You're not alone. The majority of economists would decline to endorse
that statement. Not the 5 and the 650, but the majority in the country.
