danielpalos
Verified User
That data is a lagging indicator. It could take around six months to a year to get a better picture of the situation.
What happens if Biden gets his $15 minimum wage passed?
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
Yeah, we can just look at the employment statistics of all these cases he's bringing up and look at them in context.
Arizona is a great example. TA said they increased their MW in 2006, but didn't bother to look at the employment statistics for 2006 for Arizona to see the actual results.
Doing so reveals that AZ's unemployment rate declined 0.6% from January 2006 to December 2006, with a MW increase right in the middle of it.
Conservatives reaching back 14 years to find an article that kinda sorta supports their argument, only to have that source smacked down by the concept of linear time, is especially pathetic.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The same way companies and employers do everyday. What you get paid compared to what you produce for the company.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Except minimum wage is not the be all, end all, of employment rates. If anything, in most states its a small fraction of all employment. Arizona usually enjoys a low unemployment rate thanks to companies like Intel or Raytheon moving out of California for friendlier business climates.
So, trying to compare the overall employment rate to changes in minimum wage are rarely going to show what minimum wage actually does for it.
Overall in the US:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...e,collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
In Arizona only 1.5% of the workforce gets paid the prevailing state minimum wage:
So, trying to argue that somehow a minor fraction of the workforce is representative of the whole is utter ill-informed nonsense. It is you, LV426 once again, who's talking without bothering to look up facts.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/635009/us-minimum-wage-workers-by-state/
But HOW, that's my question. HOW are they measuring this, because what you wrote seemed to have established an arbitrary standard and I would like to know what went into that?
That isn't how businesses look at it, just FYI.
They look at it purely in terms of revenues vs. costs.
danielpalos
Verified User
It is safe to say that we should have metrics within six months to a year.
And, California has the largest economy in the US.
According to any objective measure since even the dollar menu won't double even if the minimum wage does.
Well, you are the one who claimed AZ raising their MW killed jobs and businesses without bothering to do the research into certifying that statement.
Did you know that 58M workers make less than $15/hr, and they represent about 45% of the total workforce?
You didn't know that, did you?
But we're talking 2006, which was when the article YOU LINKED TO was from.
Looking at the employment statistics for AZ in 2006, we find that contrary to your claims that the MW would kill jobs, AZ actually INCREASED their workforce AND lowered their unemployment rate by more than half a point over 12 months.
Now, you would have us believe on the one hand that raising the MW kills jobs, but then you have us believe on the other hand that raising the MW wouldn't affect that many people anyway.
So both things can't be true. One of those things is a lie. It has to be in order for the statement to align with reality.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Depends on the company. For example, a company like a law firm or contract research firm might measure it on how many clients and contracts you generate. A manufacturer on the cost of labor as part of the value of the products produced. A fast food restaurant on sales versus labor cost as part of product cost.
That is how businesses look at it. When I do construction or maintenance work that's how I look at it. Labor is a cost. How much that labor costs is driven by a combination of the amount of work to be done and the skill level necessary to get it done. I consider prevailing average wage in the trades necessary as a factor.
Right, but how many workers in Arizona earn up to $15/hr? Because nationally, it's about 45%. And I'm guessing it's driven mostly by red states.
So this also undermines your other argument about raising the MW killing jobs and businesses.
If you're ALSO trying to say that it doesn't actually affect that many people, then you can't also argue that it's bad for businesses and will kill them.
So it seems to me like you really need to figure your own position out on this, because you're contradicting yourself all over the fucking place with your bullshit.
NOPE.
Any business looks at it purely within revenues vs. costs.
That is universal.
You are *thisclose* to getting to the point. So close, yet so far away...
(SIGHS DEEPLY)
No, it really isn't.
A business looks at a P&L, not this weird, arbitrary, post-hoc standard you're trying to convince me of is legitimate, but really isn't.
Do you even know what a P&L is? If you did, you wouldn't be saying this stupid shit.
This is exactly why most small businesses fail by year 10...none of you clowns know shit about owning and managing a business.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Minimum wage can kill jobs and even businesses. Those faced with marginal ROI are the most likely. But it has other affects too.
A big one, and one that is likely to increase significantly is that you have to have experience and a track record of employment to be hired. That is, companies won't hire you at $15 an hour to learn on the job. You need to already have the necessary skill set. You also need verifiable experience at that job. Thus, you may be required to spend several thousand dollars going to a trade school to learn how to do the job you want--probably on a student loan-- and then work as an intern or for free to get experience before you can actually get hired.
Higher minimum wage means a higher hurdle to entry level jobs. That in turn will make more marginal potential employees less employable.
But it hasn't. Even in Arizona, in the case you chose to highlight on this thread, bro.
AZ's statistics show job growth after the MW increase, not job loss.
Are you going to argue with reality?
Few things about this:
1. $15/hr is the minimum wage we are talking about, so if you're getting hired with no experience, that's fine. Aren't MW jobs supposed to build experience? That's the refrain from you people.
2. For a $15/hr job, which would be the minimum, why would there suddenly be these requirements when there weren't before?
3. Again, solved by making public colleges and universities tuition free and/or forgiving all student loan debt.
4. By law, almost all internships at for-profit companies have to be paid. Internships for most non-profits also have to be paid. There was a gigantic court case about this very thing...in the entertainment industry: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-reaches-settlement-landmark-lawsuit-910390
No it doesn't. If anything, it makes the labor market MORE COMPETITIVE for workers, with businesses having to lure them with consistently higher wages.
Last edited:
What do you mean by "marginal"? This feels like another subjective interjection.
LOL, the 'business owner' trying to sound intelligent. ROI is a measure of INVESTMENT. It is not a measure of profit. I suspect you are trying to say those that have low margins, but you lack not only the vocabulary but an understanding of WHAT contributes to that margin (cost of materials, inventory management, cost of manufacturing, cost of labor). No one is going to require 'experience' to work as a minimum wage worker at a McDonalds. That's just laughable. You don't appear to have enough business
knowledge to run a lemonade stand. The ONLY hurdle to entry level jobs is the inventory of jobs. And that is seldom an issue. BY DEFINITION, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE EXPERIENCE. Find a different topic to fake your expertise. This one is too transparent.
BRUTALITY
Based on what? Your wishful thinking?
And the most homeless persons, the most poverty, and the most people dependent on government assistance than any other state in the US, despite having raided the minimum wage each year since 2017.
Calipornia’s persistently high housing costs drive almost 2 million people into poverty, with 17.2% of Calipornians in poverty, the nation’s highest, compared to 12.5% nationally.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2020/09/17/report-shows-big-declines-in-poverty-in-2019-but-california-leads-the-nation--in-poverty--with-austin-texas-trying-hard-to-catch-up/?sh=6ae2f10b7897
For the past 10 years, Calipornia has had the nation’s highest poverty rate as determined by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications.html
I don't recall stating that "the dollar menu won't double even if the minimum wage does".
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
This is nothing but a combination of logical fallacies starting with one of Trivial Objections. It then moves to an ad hominem and ends with Continuum fallacy.
All data is necessarily a lagging indicator. Perhaps that's why you prefer wishful thinking.
Cite an example of a boost in minimum wages driving economic improvement.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
This is clearly wrong. If the cost of labor is above the productivity of that labor then employers will either automate, not do whatever it is at all, or minimize their doing it to the maximum extent possible. We see that clearly in fast food where the impetus is to automate the process and eliminate employees altogether. In construction it is done by mechanizing. No, there is no need for ditch diggers anymore. You use a machine with one operator doing it.
Many otherwise entry level jobs now require skills. Again in construction, you have to have a certificate from a trade school to get hired or be able to demonstrate years of experience in that trade. Food handlers now have to get certified on health requirements (food handler card) before being hired. Bartenders, pet groomers, all sorts of low end jobs now require previous training and certification before you can get hired. That will only increase with higher wages. An employer wants to know for sure before you get hired that you can do the job and have a successful track record in doing it.
Making college "tuition free" just shifts the cost onto taxpayers. That's hardly fair. Government created the mess and you want government to make it bigger.
A higher minimum wage does not mean more competition for workers. It means workers will have to compete harder for available jobs. It will be the employer who gets to pick and choose who they take rather then being a "seller's market" where cheap labor means more entry level jobs being available.
Another way around it for some employers is to switch to using contractors instead. That is, they hire you as a contract employee for a fixed term and amount of money. Then your wage is on you, not the company you work for. A variant of that already in place is the "temp service." Here the company hires you from the temp service you are with. They pay the temp service and the temp service pays you. You don't work out, you're gone the next day and it's someone else's turn to try for the job. You work out after say 90 days, the company offers you a position doing what you're already doing.
Higher wages drive much of this because employers have greater incentive to make sure that the employee they hire is going to work out for them where low wages there is less risk from hiring someone who's unfit to do the job.
So, you can't refute a single word. Got it.