Chaos in Baltimore

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not sure what the presumed hypocrisy is. There is no such thing as a free ride--that comes from taxpayers money. I don't think it's a big shock that people who pay taxes are also upset at how those taxes will be spent.

I'm sorry, but $370 billion dollars (11 percent of the Federal budget) for a safety net for nearly 350 million people is a pittance.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The hypocrisy is expecting to live in a society yet pay as little as possible regardless of who it hurts. It's a shame that Americans have become so damned stingy. One of the richest nations on Earth, it should be a no-brainer that we help those who struggle.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm sorry, but $370 billion dollars (11 percent of the Federal budget) for a safety net for nearly 350 million people is a pittance.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The hypocrisy is expecting to live in a society yet pay as little as possible regardless of who it hurts. It's a shame that Americans have become so damned stingy. One of the richest nations on Earth, it should be a no-brainer that we help those who struggle.

I'm not making any bold, specific statements.

Just noting that your basic point that taxpayers (all of whom don't want to pay taxes, btw, who does?) complaining about free rides for others as some kind of high point of hilarity/hypocrisy doesn't make much sense. Of course taxpayers will have an issue with the way the government spends their tax money. That's kinda what they do.

[Lathum]

Intersting read on minimum wage.

The author can be a dick at times, but I found this blog entry a good read.

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...-and-thats-ok/

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Intersting read on minimum wage.

The author can be a dick at times, but I found this blog entry a good read.

Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK - The Matt Walsh Blog

So it's okay to squeeze the poor...

False choice, false premise, false dichotomy, false everything. Yes, it might be true that our welfare system is out of control, so much so that even a perfectly able bodied, fully employed single young person can eat out of the government subsidies trough. But, again, the answer is to get the Nanny State under control, not to use it as a means to hold the rest of us hostage.
Talk about entitlement. Is there any greater example of an entitled attitude than someone saying: “I demand you either give me a raise or subsidize my lifestyle with tax money!”
The answer is to break people of that dependence, not transfer it from one place to the next.

Which is essentially what he is saying. Take the safety net away and allow people to wallow for salaries less that have less value than they had in 1970.

There simply aren't enough high skilled jobs for 150 million (or even 100 million) people. So if you have to pay more for that Whopper so people can make a living wage, too damned bad.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So it's okay to squeeze the poor...

Which is essentially what he is saying. Take the safety net away and allow people to wallow for salaries less that have less value than they had in 1970.

There simply aren't enough high skilled jobs for 150 million (or even 100 million) people. So if you have to pay more for that Whopper so people can make a living wage, too damned bad.

And at some price, people stop buying the Whopper. Which then puts those same people out of jobs.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Raven

And at some price, people stop buying the Whopper. Which then puts those same people out of jobs.

Not a chance because people like the convenience and competition.

It always comes down to "it might be hard at first, so we shouldn't even try".

[Lathum]

I reposted the full article, the one in the unedited thread was his reply to some comments.

[Grover]

Most Baltimore Protesters Arrested Monday Remain in Jail Without Charges

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Grover

Most Baltimore Protesters Arrested Monday Remain in Jail Without Charges

Goldblatt reports that many of those charged have been ordered held on bails of hundreds of thousands dollars.

Classy. The system works!

[Raven]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Classy. The system works!

The entire BPD have been working endlessly since Saturday. The demand has exceeded their resources. We are in a State of Emergency. Are you really that ignorant?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Raven

The entire BPD have been working endlessly since Saturday. The demand has exceeded their resources. We are in a State of Emergency. Are you really that ignorant?

I'm talking about holding most of these people on hundreds of thousands of dollars of bail. I know with all the ruckus the smart thing to do is to spend extra resources holding these people.

[Raven]

Caitling Goldblatt and the entire City Paper are under a lot of scrutiny for their false coverage of all this, btw...



Caitlin Goldblatt claims the drunk red head is stealing this mans purse and she is attempting to stop her.


This video proves otherwise.

http://www.gfycat.com/JadedWigglyFly#?format=gif

This same man is also caught on video stealing another mans phone, just minutes later.



More about the City Paper.
http://imgur.com/gallery/QVh32

The red head's reddit thread.
http://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/co...r_something_up

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm talking about holding most of these people on hundreds of thousands of dollars of bail. I know with all the ruckus the smart thing to do is to spend extra resources holding these people.

Clearly they feel that the bail amount is warranted based on either what they're charged with or what they're about to be charged with.

Frankly, if this group includes the more hostile protesters and/or rioters, it makes sense to me that "the system" would rather they sat in jail for a few days, don't you think?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Frankly, if this group includes the more hostile protesters and/or rioters, it makes sense to me that "the system" would rather they sat in jail for a few days, don't you think?

It would depend on the circumstances surrounding each individual protester. If they've shown violent tendencies in the past, then yes they should be held. If this is a one off incident driven by the heat of the situation, then I'd be okay with them being free until trial.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Which is essentially what he is saying. Take the safety net away and allow people to wallow for salaries less that have less value than they had in 1970.

Indeed. Yet these same people don't rail on the "dependence" of corporations getting millions in tax payer subsidies which dwarf the amount of money going to the poor and needy. They don't rail on the "dependence" of people upon the protections granted by the state - though its legal system, public services, and infrastructure spending.

They go after personal responsibility for these folks on the bottom of the pyramid while absolving the personal responsibility of the voters who vote to create these situations, who vote to strip away policies designed to improve the equality of opportunity, who vote to strip away funding on education.

The only 'class warfare' it seems are from the rich putting a different standard upon the poor to absolve themselves of any responsibility and make the narrative about how its all the poor folks fault.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It would depend on the circumstances surrounding each individual protester. If they've shown violent tendencies in the past, then yes they should be held. If this is a one off incident driven by the heat of the situation, then I'd be okay with them being free until trial.

Past history of violence is important. How do you regulate that on the fly without more problems?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It would depend on the circumstances surrounding each individual protester. If they've shown violent tendencies in the past, then yes they should be held. If this is a one off incident driven by the heat of the situation, then I'd be okay with them being free until trial.

Well, how do you know it's not warranted? Do you have access to the files on these individual protesters? And what if what they did in this one incident, regardless of past history, actually warrants a high bail by itself?

You made a sweeping statement on the legitimacy of those bail amounts without knowing squat. Statements like that really hurt your message.

This is above and beyond the likelihood that A) city and court resources are stretched to the max right now, slowing the arrest and bail process; B) the probability that these bail amounts are just guideline amounts for now based on overcharges from law enforcement (pretty much SOP; charge as much as possible and sort it out later) since we know from the article that the courts haven't seen many of these protesters yet; and C) the simple fact that it is in the public benefit's favor to keep the more violent protesters busy for a day or two?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. Yet these same people don't rail on the "dependence" of corporations getting millions in tax payer subsidies which dwarf the amount of money going to the poor and needy. They don't rail on the "dependence" of people upon the protections granted by the state - though its legal system, public services, and infrastructure spending.

They go after personal responsibility for these folks on the bottom of the pyramid while absolving the personal responsibility of the voters who vote to create these situations, who vote to strip away policies designed to improve the equality of opportunity, who vote to strip away funding on education.

The only 'class warfare' it seems are from the rich putting a different standard upon the poor to absolve themselves of any responsibility and make the narrative about how its all the poor folks fault.

Personally I would like to see minimum wage be a moving figure set on January 1 each year (or as close as possible) and tie it to standard of living cost indicators and inflation.

Well, after normalizing it first to what is considered to be a proper minimum wage (not sure what the ideal standard is supposed to be the federal minimum wage--is it to be at 80% of what is considered to be the lower boundary for middle class? I have no idea...)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally I would like to see minimum wage be a moving figure set on January 1 each year (or as close as possible) and tie it to standard of living cost indicators and inflation.

Well, after normalizing it first to what is considered to be a proper minimum wage (not sure what the ideal standard is supposed to be the federal minimum wage--is it to be at 80% of what is considered to be the lower boundary for middle class? I have no idea...)

At the very least, I think, we need to tie to inflation, so that whatever we decide as ideal doesn't get wiped away due to prices rising.

There is the issue that I think we've all heard of retailers like Walmart having training for its workers on how to obtain federal assistance because Walmart's pay scale falls under those levels. I think any ideal needs to consider that - if folks have full time jobs, it should be enough that it doesn't fall under lines for federal assistance.

[bob]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

At the very least, I think, we need to tie to inflation, so that whatever we decide as ideal doesn't get wiped away due to prices rising.

Isn't this a never ending calculation though? Raise minimum wage due to inflation -> more money out there chasing goods -> prices rise (inflation) -> Raise minimum wage.... and repeat forever?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There is the issue that I think we've all heard of retailers like Walmart having training for its workers on how to obtain federal assistance because Walmart's pay scale falls under those levels. I think any ideal needs to consider that - if folks have full time jobs, it should be enough that it doesn't fall under lines for federal assistance.

THIS!

We may not agree on much in the soccer world, but I think we are pretty similar politically speaking.

[JPhillips]

Minimum wage isn't enough of the overall economy to significantly effect inflation rates.

[bob]

I'll admit that I'm not a trained economist. However, seems like you can't have it both ways:

1) Minimum wage isn't enough of the overall economy to significantly effect inflation rates.

and

2) There are so many people making minimum wage as the primary breadwinner for their family (or as an individual) that upping minimum wage will lift a significant number of people out of poverty and make a major impact.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

Isn't this a never ending calculation though? Raise minimum wage due to inflation -> more money out there chasing goods -> prices rise (inflation) -> Raise minimum wage.... and repeat forever?

Do you think that inflation's constant rise is a never ending calculation, or do you think inflation doesn't exist until we tie minimum wage to it? And do you not think that the Fed can take that into their calculations (you know where most of the money supply in this country is actually controlled by)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

I'll admit that I'm not a trained economist. However, seems like you can't have it both ways:

1) Minimum wage isn't enough of the overall economy to significantly effect inflation rates.

and

2) There are so many people making minimum wage as the primary breadwinner for their family (or as an individual) that upping minimum wage will lift people out of poverty.

How is this at all mutually exclusive?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

At the very least, I think, we need to tie to inflation, so that whatever we decide as ideal doesn't get wiped away due to prices rising.

There is the issue that I think we've all heard of retailers like Walmart having training for its workers on how to obtain federal assistance because Walmart's pay scale falls under those levels. I think any ideal needs to consider that - if folks have full time jobs, it should be enough that it doesn't fall under lines for federal assistance.

Many cities in the Bay Area have overreached the boost in minimum wage and it is now shutting businesses down- particularly restaurants and non-profits.

A large reason is not the wage for entry level workers, but the need to raise the tenured employes wage. If new employees are now earning what an employee with 3 years is earning, it is only fair they get a raise as well.

[ISiddiqui]

The Bay Area you say? The one with lower rate of unemployment than in the rest of the state of California?

Unemployment rates in Bay Area below California average | abc7news.com

[ISiddiqui]

I tend to find it strange that people only can think of inflation when it comes to raising the minimum wage, but never when, say a major tax cut gets announced. I wonder why...

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

There simply aren't enough high skilled jobs for 150 million (or even 100 million) people. So if you have to pay more for that Whopper so people can make a living wage, too damned bad.

It is the lack of available high skill jobs that is keeping people in min wage jobs, not their own lack of skills?

Relating this to the thread, it seems there are communities where The System does a miserable job at providing the skills need for its young people. But if they had those skills, they could be employed

[bob]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How is this at all mutually exclusive?

I'm asking a simple question, not being an ass, like some people.

All raising the minimum wage is going to do is set a new dollar amount on what poverty is. It isn't going to change anything for the average person on minimum wage because prices will change to reflect the new amount of money in the overall pool.

What needs to be done is more to get better jobs that naturally pay more money, not just insist that crappy jobs that weren't designed for breadwinners pay like they were. I don't know how you can do that though.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Bay Area you say? The one with lower rate of unemployment than in the rest of the state of California?

Unemployment rates in Bay Area below California average | abc7news.com

Not all cities here are equal:
Minimum wage hike hits booming Oakland dining scene - SFGate


My wife, who is in charge of the largest provider of afterschool programs in San Francisco, had to cut its workforce by 20% as a direct result of the wage increase.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Many cities in the Bay Area have overreached the boost in minimum wage and it is now shutting businesses down- particularly restaurants and non-profits.

A large reason is not the wage for entry level workers, but the need to raise the tenured employes wage. If new employees are now earning what an employee with 3 years is earning, it is only fair they get a raise as well.

This is the issue.

Additionally, you have an issue with a corporation, don't do business with them. I refuse to buy from Walmart. That said, I also have no issue with their business practices and see no for the gov't to get involved. However, that does play a role in where I shop. If they cannot get competent workers that care about their quality of work, I will not do business with you regardless of your low price.

Also, a good article that discusses the Bay Area stats:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...-minimum-wage/

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I tend to find it strange that people only can think of inflation when it comes to raising the minimum wage, but never when, say a major tax cut gets announced. I wonder why...

I am not saying your general point is wrong (about the strangeness or inflation/minimum wage discussions), but economically speaking, your example doesn't really work.

Before a tax cut-->the government gets that money and spends it
After tax cut-->the wage earners keep the money and spend it

The end result is that the money is spent on goods and services either way, and the net inflationary result will be the same.

Of course, this is a vast oversimplification and it doesn't take into consideration people just saving the money or investing it (rather than spending it) and it also doesn't consider the government sending much of its tax revenue to banks to pay off debt service (which also has a different economic effect).

But the main point is that a tax cut doesn't by itself mean that inflation rises differently than if it never happened.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

All raising the minimum wage is going to do is set a new dollar amount on what poverty is. It isn't going to change anything for the average person on minimum wage because prices will change to reflect the new amount of money in the overall pool.

That's not really how inflation works, or at the very least, it's very partially how inflation works. Inflation is a factor of the money supply - and increase in wages will increase money supply for workers, yes... but at the same time it'll decrease the amount of money that the owners have, or customers depending on where the money is going. Therefore any monetary increases are mitigated.

In addition, most of the changes in money supply are controlled by the banking system. The Federal Reserve is in charge of how much money is in the system and regulates that by buying or selling of bonds (ideally). And they are responsible for reacting to major changes by changing how they handle the money supply - such as in major fiscal policy changes, like, say, the Bush tax cuts.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not all cities here are equal:
Minimum wage hike hits booming Oakland dining scene - SFGate

My wife, who is in charge of the largest provider of afterschool programs in San Francisco, had to cut its workforce by 20% as a direct result of the wage increase.

I would indicate that as your article pointed out that the increases in prices in Oakland are far higher than they were in San Jose, when it had a minimum wage increase a few years back. It seems to indicate that these Oakland restaurant owners are using the fears to jack up rates above what may actually be necessarily (if any increase is necessary at all). The article also points out that having the raise immediate rather than SF's gradual increase may be the culprit as well.

Of course some programs are going to be cut because they are already on the margins. I'm not sure that that is any reason to keep minimum wages low, however. These same fears and issues raised its head the last time the federal minimum wage was raised. If we fear about people losing lower paying jobs, why not eliminate the minimum wage altogether? And in the first few years, people overreact and freak out - the wages and employment rates stabilize as people understand the new reality.

For whatever reason it appears that every other policy decision needs to have its good and bad parts looked at in balance, aside from the minimum wage. It's always about folks being laid off, but never about any potential benefits - though I guess we could always keep the min wage low or non-existent if we dramatically increase government welfare for those making under the poverty line... that's one option.

I'll also note as for the low unemployment rates... the counties were SF and Oakland are in are also lower than state average.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am not saying your general point is wrong (about the strangeness or inflation/minimum wage discussions), but economically speaking, your example doesn't really work.

Before a tax cut-->the government gets that money and spends it
After tax cut-->the wage earners keep the money and spend it

The end result is that the money is spent on goods and services either way, and the net inflationary result will be the same.

Of course, this is a vast oversimplification and it doesn't take into consideration people just saving the money or investing it (rather than spending it) and it also doesn't consider the government sending much of its tax revenue to banks to pay off debt service (which also has a different economic effect).

But the main point is that a tax cut doesn't by itself mean that inflation rises differently than if it never happened.

It's the same thing with a minimum wage rise. Where do you think the increase in wages is coming from? It's not materializing out of thin air.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

I'll admit that I'm not a trained economist. However, seems like you can't have it both ways:

1) Minimum wage isn't enough of the overall economy to significantly effect inflation rates.

and

2) There are so many people making minimum wage as the primary breadwinner for their family (or as an individual) that upping minimum wage will lift a significant number of people out of poverty and make a major impact.

Last year GDP was @17.5 trillion and @4.5 million people were paid at or below the minimum wage. Depending on where the minimum wage ended up, more than that 4.5 mil would be effected, but the overall effect still wouldn't be enough to cause inflation worries.

Doubling every minimum wage worker's salary would cost less than 100 billion.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Last year GDP was @17.5 trillion and @4.5 million people were paid at or below the minimum wage. Depending on where the minimum wage ended up, more than that 4.5 mil would be effected, but the overall effect still wouldn't be enough to cause inflation worries.

Doubling every minimum wage worker's salary would cost less than 100 billion.

So you're just going to pretend that nobody else would have to also receive wage hikes as well? How many people would be earning under the new minimum wage? How many people earning slightly more (with more experience and/or in a higher skilled position) would also deserve a higher wage?

Won't even go into how the general cost of living would increase across the board.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's the same thing with a minimum wage rise. Where do you think the increase in wages is coming from? It's not materializing out of thin air.

True. Really, inflation is created out of lending from the banking system. So any particular economic change has to be considered for its impact on the banking system. That can be done through both minimum wage increases and tax cuts, so I guess you're right that it is strange to not bring inflation up in one, and not the other.

But then, neither one of us nor any other poster in this thread is unfamiliar with introducing straw men to support our arguments.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

True. Really, inflation is created out of lending from the banking system. So any particular economic change has to be considered for its impact on the banking system. That can be done through both minimum wage increases and tax cuts, so I guess you're right that it is strange to not bring inflation up in one, and not the other.

Well the reason we don't bring up inflation in tax cut debates is because I think most people realize that the Fed will consider that in their monetary policy. The same applies or would apply to a minimum wage increase.

After all, we've had min wage increases in the past and we didn't fall off the inflation cliff.

[bob]

Like I said, I'm not an economist, but I just can't comprehend how increasing the minimum wage to $15 (which is what I think I've seen people protesting for) will make life great for those living on minimum wage, make the evil rich owners have less, and make life unchanged for everyone else.

Seems like an easy boogeyman instead of addressing real issues like education and the movement of better paying jobs to other locations, both in the US and outside.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

Like I said, I'm not an economist, but I just can't comprehend how increasing the minimum wage to $15 (which is what I think I've seen people protesting for) will make life great for those living on minimum wage, make the evil rich owners have less, and make life unchanged for everyone else.

Seems like an easy boogeyman instead of addressing real issues like education and the movement of better paying jobs to other locations, both in the US and outside.

Seems like quite a strawman you've built for yourself here . Has anyone made the argument that life would be unchanged? Or have they indicated that the downsides would be much less than people against minimum wage increases say they will be?

Do you wish for an elimination of the minimum wage in total? Why or why not?

And why do you think they don't address education or outsourcing? Do people usually only stop at one issue in your experience?

[BillJasper]

A link provided by a member from another forum I frequent...

Toward a New ‘Broken Windows’ Theory | The Nation

There’s something that needs to be cleared up: the civil-rights movement was not successful because the quiet dignity of nonviolent protests appealed to the morality of the white public. Nonviolent direct action, a staple employed by many organizations during the civil-rights movement, was and is a much more sophisticated tactic. Organizers found success when nonviolent protests were able to provoke white violence, either by ordinary citizens or police, and images of that brutality were transmitted across the country and the rest of the world. The pictures of bloodied bodies standing in nonviolent defiance of the law horrified people at home and proved embarrassing for the country in a global context.

So anyone who calls for protestors to remain “peaceful,” like the civil-rights activists of old, must answer this question: What actions should be taken when America refuses to be ashamed? Images of black death are proliferating beyond our capacity to tell each story, yet there remains no tipping point in sight—no moment when white people in America will say, “Enough.” And no amount of international outrage diminishes the US’s reputation to the point of challenging its status as a hegemonic superpower.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

So you're just going to pretend that nobody else would have to also receive wage hikes as well? How many people would be earning under the new minimum wage? How many people earning slightly more (with more experience and/or in a higher skilled position) would also deserve a higher wage?

Won't even go into how the general cost of living would increase across the board.

No, I said in my post it would effect more people, I just don't have any numbers for what the overall cost would be. But even if you multiply it by ten it still won't lead to crippling inflation.

[bob]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Seems like quite a strawman you've built for yourself here . Has anyone made the argument that life would be unchanged? Or have they indicated that the downsides would be much less than people against minimum wage increases say they will be?

I'm just asking questions because I seriously don't know the answer to things and I thought on a discussion board I could, you know, discuss things.

You've made the argument that there would be no inflation without saying why, but it seems to me that prices would rise in order to pay for the rate increase. Large business owners don't seem to like to just suddenly take lower profits.

Do you wish for an elimination of the minimum wage in total? Why or why not?

I honestly don't know what the effects of elimination would be - I'm sure the rate exists for a reason. I'm just curious why people think raising the rate would improve things. I've only heard people say it will help if they ignore things like price increases and effects on other salaries like others have mentioned on here.

And why do you think they don't address education or outsourcing? Do people usually only stop at one issue in your experience?

I'm not following what you are asking here.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Seems like quite a strawman you've built for yourself here . Has anyone made the argument that life would be unchanged? Or have they indicated that the downsides would be much less than people against minimum wage increases say they will be?

Do you wish for an elimination of the minimum wage in total? Why or why not?

And why do you think they don't address education or outsourcing? Do people usually only stop at one issue in your experience?

He does have a point (or maybe not his point, but it's a point that is worth considering) that a minimum wage increase to $15 would cause a massive upheaval in things in the short term before they normalize that would have massive economic ramifications. There are very few businesses which don't depend on minimum wage workers at some level, and jumping so quickly to a level that high would almost immediately close businesses heavily dependent on those workers in the near term, and would affect the entire economy at the second or third tier of impact in the slightly longer term. And it could affect it permanently if it means that a whole another ton of jobs are shipped out of the country.

So any kind of minimum wage increase should be phased in carefully, and the economic impact considered and minimized as much as possible, before proceeding with subsequent increases.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by bob

I'm just asking questions because I seriously don't know the answer to things and I thought on a discussion board I could, you know, discuss things.

You've made the argument that there would be no inflation without saying why, but it seems to me that prices would rise in order to pay for the rate increase. Large business owners don't seem to like to just suddenly take lower profits.



I honestly don't know what the effects of elimination would be - I'm sure the rate exists for a reason. I'm just curious why people think raising the rate would improve things. I've only heard people say it will help if they ignore things like price increases and effects on other salaries like others have mentioned on here.



I'm not following what you are asking here.

I am also not an economist but would guess if say Walmart has 50 people working at any one time and were told to double their pay that 25 of them would not have jobs tomorrow.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

You've made the argument that there would be no inflation

Did I?

But, of course CPI would increase somewhat - however, there is a wide range of things that the government does in order to control inflation. Those wouldn't disappear if wages rise.

I honestly don't know what the effects of elimination would be - I'm sure the rate exists for a reason. I'm just curious why people think raising the rate would improve things. I've only heard people say it will help if they ignore things like price increases and effects on other salaries like others have mentioned on here.

The rate exists because people did not think it was right for people to have full time jobs yet make incredibly little, so they decided on a minimum wage - because people who work should make some baseline.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am also not an economist but would guess if say Walmart has 50 people working at any one time and were told to double their pay that 25 of them would not have jobs tomorrow.

There's a lot more going on for a business than wages. If those 25 employees have no bearing on income, why are they there in the first place? Presumably the company needs them to retain or grow their income. If they cut half of their necessary work force they will certainly lose income as people are less satisfied with the shopping experience. Cutting those 25 employees could leave them in worse shape than paying them double.

Wages are only one part of a company's expenses. Paying some share of employees double doesn't mean expenses double.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So any kind of minimum wage increase should be phased in carefully, and the economic impact considered and minimized as much as possible, before proceeding with subsequent increases.

Of course any increase needs to be phased in over time, gradually. San Francisco's increase is a phased in one, for instance. Economic impacts, FWIW, are considered for any government policy - its the job of one of those agencies I'm forgetting at the moment to do so.

Of course, one of the biggest issues is that there is quite a divide over minimum wage increase effects in the economic community. A substantial number of economists, for example, wrote the President when he was considering raising the federal contractor minimum wage to $10.10 to tell him that it would cause very minor adverse effects on the economy (and that it's positives would outweigh the negatives). While others said this was going to cause greater unemployment - using their own models and calculations. I think every economist knows that increasing labor costs will result in higher prices or greater unemployment - the question is how much and are the benefits going to balance it out. Questions of which there is absolutely no agreement whatsoever.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I would indicate that as your article pointed out that the increases in prices in Oakland are far higher than they were in San Jose, when it had a minimum wage increase a few years back. It seems to indicate that these Oakland restaurant owners are using the fears to jack up rates above what may actually be necessarily (if any increase is necessary at all). The article also points out that having the raise immediate rather than SF's gradual increase may be the culprit as well.

Of course some programs are going to be cut because they are already on the margins. I'm not sure that that is any reason to keep minimum wages low, however. These same fears and issues raised its head the last time the federal minimum wage was raised. If we fear about people losing lower paying jobs, why not eliminate the minimum wage altogether? And in the first few years, people overreact and freak out - the wages and employment rates stabilize as people understand the new reality.

For whatever reason it appears that every other policy decision needs to have its good and bad parts looked at in balance, aside from the minimum wage. It's always about folks being laid off, but never about any potential benefits - though I guess we could always keep the min wage low or non-existent if we dramatically increase government welfare for those making under the poverty line... that's one option.

I'll also note as for the low unemployment rates... the counties were SF and Oakland are in are also lower than state average.

My point was there seems to be some truth in that you can raise it too high (and too fast).

Not sure why you keep pointing to that unemployment figure. It seems to be an incomplete generalization.

For example, if unemployment is low and cost of living is increasing, that means fewer people are presumably working at min wage. Therefore, the majority of people who are working for min wage here must be teens and college students on a short-ish term basis. So, why do we need to raise the min wage for them?

Of the adults working full time, most are minorities from poor communities, so it seems we should do more to address that problem in ways other than a wage increase.