Re: conservatives/libertarians position on the minimum wage might charitably be termed 18th century
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
sci.econ only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

 Up
Re: conservatives/libertarians position on the minimum wage might charitably be termed 18th century         

Group: sci.econ · Group Profile
Author: Les Cargill
Date: Oct 18, 2006 20:21

Robert Bunn wrote:
> "Les Cargill" cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:LEzZg.26375$fe2.1352@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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,

Um... where?
> and you
> characterize inducing more workers into the market for it as a good
> thing?
>

It is a good thing by the Luther canon. Idle hands and all that. No,
seriously, the US has been terrified of roving gangs of the unemployed
since the Depression. That's the basis for "The Road Warrior".
>
>>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.

I think you *think* you were better off.
> But I spent most of them in
> school.
>

It was a near thing, then. Steve Earle wrote "Back To The Wall " then.

http://steveearle.net/lyrics/ly-coppe.php#backtothewall

I was grinding it out on the road then. It was desperate in some
places - we toured Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois during the height
of the rust belt. At least we avoided Ohio and Pennsylvania.

You were in school. You didn't see it. Detroit was...
something ... else. Ooooh, crackheads. Micheal Moore
ain't kidding. but to me, it's like the place was...
overforested. It was a victim of too many people
thinking the way out of the halvsies was a
union job with Mr. Ford. It ties into Woody Guthrie
for me, that way.

Then I ran into all those people from Michigan (the
Black Tag People ) in Dallas in the late '80s.
>
>>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.

That's half. I don't beleive that. The median income is not
2 times minimum wage. THAT S THE MOTHA FORGING POINT, BY THE
WAY.
> 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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean anything.
> Nearly all restaurant wait staff -- even at the most high-end
> restaurants -- are paid minimum wage. Most hotel staff, too.

And tips.
> Labor isn't
> a large cost for a hotel, but for a restaurant it's pretty significant.

True.
> In fact, it's probably safe to say most restaurants will have to either
> raise prices or cut jobs to stay in business.

Bummer.
> 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.
>

Probably not, since restuaranting is such a frigging sausage grinder.
>
>>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.
>
>
>

I see a lot of people who complain a lot on here. I don't think most
of them have been hungry very often ( I got pneumonia one winter from
eating beans, ketchup and onions* ) ,or had to work very hard ( I've
done river-stone removal while a guy in a 40-horse Ford tractor pulled
on 2-ton rocks ) .

Or seen companies come and go.

*this will give you a *great* appreciation for whoever invented bacon.
Because bacon probably saved my life.

Every time I've had visibility into the upper reaches of the
econmic strata ( and I've had a few ), I see more desperation,
more stress, more people obsessed and losing themselves in
something they cannot possibly control.

God he'p me. I see artistry.

I am raised of the child of a pioneer, of somebody who grew up
with snow on his blanket, who sometimes had to eat what he could
run down. I *know* how close we all are to simple insufficiency of
caloires daily, in the greatest of countries.

So excuse me if I claim that the very recent conquest of the
simple 1500 calories a day barrier *somehow* changes all the factors
leading to that. I. Don't. Buy. It.

But there is 200 *years* between what most of you know, and what
I've figured out. But next time you see a sammich, tell it thank you for
me. Okay?

--
Les Cargill
1 Comment
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!