Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

One, the study did not exclude *all* multiple location businesses, only those that aggregate all wage and hour data from all sites into one account. Those multiple location businesses that show wage and hour data on a per-site basis were included. This is an eminently perfect methodology since many multiple location businesses have sites OUTSIDE the study area. Since the impacts inside the study area would be contaminated by this data excluding it is perfectly ok. 89% of all businesses in Washington have single-site aggregation of data and represent 62% of the entire workforce. Limiting the study to single-site businesses captures the largest portion of the employment in the study area.

Apparently Fortune magazine didn't bother to actually read the study and just went by the claims of those wishing to discredit the study. Any of those chain restaurants and big box retailers who break down their data by site instead of an overall aggregation would have their sites included in the study.

 

But the graphs *YOU* provided show the exact same thing as my graphs! Did you post data meant to misrepresent?

Where is the problem? Trying to claim that it is people retiring that is dragging down the labor force participation rate. The fact is that it is *NOT* people retiring. It is people in the 25-54 age cohort that simply cannot find jobs. Remember, the 25-54 age cohort excludes *most* of those still in school. The US graduate school population is not significant enough to affect the overall rate.

I am not entirely sure how the bls.gov came up with these figures. In Dec, 2014 the bls.gov data for Table A6 shows a total of only 31,827,000 for those 65-over. Of those, the same Table A6 shows 7,458,000 in the labor force (i.e. either employed or looking for a job) with 24,369,000 not in the labor force. The graphs in your reference would have us believe that almost 7M people under the age of 65 were retired.I suppose that could be but I'm not sure how they came up with that figure.

In essence, your graph is showing *exactly* what I claimed. That the government under Obama in 2015, when the bls study was published, was assuming that if you reached age 65 then you were considered "retired". They totally ignored their own data that showed more and more of those in the 65-over cohort were continuing to work after age 65.

In fact, at the very end of the report you reference, the summary states "Older adults were most likely to cite retirement as the main reason for not working, although the percentage who cited this reason fell."

The claim that the labor force participation rate fell because of baby boomers retiring is just garbage. It was garbage when Obama made the claim and it is garbage today!

 

And add that an individual whose work performance and work ethic is so poor that they can't earn a minimum living wage does not deserves a job or a paycheck from anyone. They are self-made failures- who have failed to learn anything except how to live off others, failed to be responsible for themselves. When we "help" them, we endorse their system and the idea that the world owes them a living. Perhaps if nobody helped those who refuse to help themselves, that would close the door on that miserable condition too.

I believe people should be paid what they are worth. What they are worth is in their own control. Who they are willing to work for and what compensation they are willing to work for is also in their control. That doesn't mean you control others who see your value differently- or that you have any right to. Too few people understand that they have that power, and blame their position on the rest of the world instead of themselves. They see the business world as some kind of social service that exists so they can draw a check. That insures an attitude that precludes the probability of better wages or salary, raises, promotions and job security. They only fill a spot until something better comes along.

If you work for someone else- you must produce value for them beyond what you cost. If you do that, you are an asset. The better you do it, the more you are worth. If your current employer does not see or appreciate your value someone else will, and make you a better deal ..... unless that value only exists in your own mind.

Of course you could open your own business. While you won't succeed, you will get an education of considerable value.

 

I wish I could "like" this post a hundred times.

 

So you find it important to dwell on maybe 1% of the workforce or less, as though it should determine wage and hour laws. Have you noticed that if a person doesn't perform adequately they either are not hired or they don't stay employed? Have you noticed that in this way the labor market takes care of your concerns?

OH REALLY?!!!! Do you mean that? If so, welcome to socialism. Did you know that the capitalist will not hire a person unless the capitalist is reasonably sure that the employee will be worth more than what he is paid? If the employee were "paid what they are worth" the capitalist would be out of business soon.

"Worker cooperatives can sometimes sound too good to be true: a business owned and controlled by its workers, who each usually get an equal share of the profits. Compensation for some has gone from $6.25 an hour to $25 an hour. Flexible schedules. Worker majorities on the boards of directors interviewing CEO candidates."
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/nyc-worker-cooperatives-jobs-increase

Apparently the people whose pay went from $6.25/hr to $25/hr were not being paid even close to what they're worth. But you want no increase in the minimum wage.

 

I believe that what @spiritgide means is that people ought to be paid the amount that they can command on market.

All enterprises, including WSDEs combine land, labor, and capital in an effort to produce a profit.

In every state in the union, it is perfectly legal for a group of workers to form an LLC and conduct business as a WSDE. If that's what you desire, then I suggest you file your papers and start your business.

 

Since it is so good....I think we should double it! Of course this doesn't represent the # of jobs employers are going to find ways to eliminate.

 

But that's not what he said. Do you see how our Newspeak and crimethink works? We are given common expressions like "paid what they're worth" to mean something nice and safe for capitalism. You "translated" his "crimethink" sanitized wording. I pointed out reality and you would "correct" me.

Of course. But in capitalism, as an employee, you have no say in the matter; you are a victim of it no matter how you may prefer to glorify your role.

I have on multiple occasions shown you the limitations of that theory. WSDEs need to be able to finance activities occasionally, and currently one big barrier to WSDEs is that bankers commonly have trouble approving loans to WSDEs because the banker needs to have a final, definite entity or process by which they can be sure to collect their loan if the WSDE should fail. And they aren't comfortable with all the employees being owners as an answer to that need.

If you had read what I provided you and noted all the various other issues and difficulties involved, you would have realized that your answer here is not valid.

 

Elimination of the minimum wage would not be a reasonable option and leaving it where it is, so far out of date, would not be a reasonable option either. So what would you like to suggest? A 25¢ increase? Continued taxpayer subsidies for inadequate pay?

Studies have found that for every unemployment compensation dollar given to every unemployed person, it adds over $1.50 to the economy. Raising the minimum wage would do the same. We just have to not exceed a level at which the increase begins to do serious damage to overall employment. I mean, if we raised the MW to, say, $20/hr in one leap, it would be devastating to the economy. But $10?

 

1%? If that were true, there would be no problem. The reason that we have 3-4% unemployment in the best of times is that some people are just unfit for employment, no matter how desperate the need or how good the pay. This is due to lack of attitude and ambition, not lack of opportunity. I started my first business in 1968, and I'm running my seventh one now. This is experience talking, not speculation.

Of course he must be worth more than he is paid. The employer is worth something too, and also deserves to benefit. Business is not a social welfare system that exists for the sole benefit of workers. It buys products and services with the specific goal of selling the end products or services it produces at a profit- which is in effect the company's wage for doing what it does and investing in all the infrastructure- and unlike employees, nobody guarantees them a dime's profit. It is all at risk for them- which is why about half of all new businesses fail within a few years. IF you think your employer should manage your work and keep your income stable and provide you fringe benefits as some kind of social entitlement... you should go into business for yourself and see how well that works out from the other side.

If that is actually true, then you have solved the problem you complain about. In that huge margin of increase, if those workers contribute 1/2 the earnings gain as a guarantee of repayment, they could find easy investment money and crank up their own factory. It sounds so easy until you actually try to do it- and then you find out reports like this lied by structuring the numbers to create what they wanted you to see and what you want to believe... but in fact, generally doesn't work. If it did, such practices would already dominate the business world. What works is what survives and become common place. What does not appears from time to time- but dies because in practice, it fails to work.

You act as though the employers are greedy exploiters and employees innocent victims. I have yet to see an employee who would turn down being paid more than they are worth, nor the employee who will respond to an unearned raise with anything other than an attitude that he was already worth it and need not perform any differently. Those who care that the employer gets their money's worth are rare- and soon promoted.

There are some really good people out there, who do their jobs well and make good money. There are also a lot whose daily goal at work is to do as little as possible and get out the door as soon as possible. IF there were enough of the former to meet the needs of businesses, the latter would all be unemployed.

 

You let the market decide. Do you think high school kids would be willing to do full service gas at stations for 6$ just to raise pkt change? Not only would it offer a service, it would teach work ethics sorely lacking. Too much regulation. People like yourself wanting to mandate too much on people wanting to start businesses.

 

And you are correct- what we are worth in the marketplace is determined by the value others will pay for our services. If nobody wants to pay you what you think you are worth, it is probably because you have grossly overestimated your own value.

 

You can't bullshit your way out of this , this country only has Communist or Marxist or socialist if you get to define their definition. Your definition has nothing to do with reality, sorry Government doesn't own all business, all national resources and all means of production. And government in no way says what businesses can make or do they set wages or tell you what job you will have. Only in the minds of *************. Our friend Cut and Paste has noidea what he is talking about. He contributes nothing to any conversation.

 

Except young black males. But who cares about them? Certainly not "compassionate" progressives. If those kids did better, too many might start moving into mostly-white neighborhoods.

 

Consumption doesn't create wealth. The cost of that increased consumption is long term investment and prosperity.

 

Establishing a minimum wage is unfair to low-skilled workers who are competing for jobs against higher skilled workers.

Let's say that there is a job opening at a company. Two applicants apply for this position. One is inexperienced and low-skilled. The other has job experience and is highly skilled. The company knows that whichever person they hire, they will need to pay them $15/hour. Which of these applicants will lose the competition for this job?

 

That will never happen. I think you know that is ridiculous because no employer is going to consider paying a newbee unskilled worker the same as he pays an experienced, skilled worker.

 

Exactly. And making it a law that they do so is cruel to the unskilled worker, as it results in him losing the competition for jobs.

 

Again, Marxism is *NOT* owning all businesses., national resources, and all means of production. You are confusing Marxism with Socialism. Socialism is a *phase* of Marxism and not even the first one! Marxism is a continuum ranging from government control of business and capital to collective ownership of business and capital.

You can't even get this one right. And it simply doesn't matter how man words you put in my mouth!

If government doesn't set wages then what is the national minimum wage everyone has been touting? You can't even get this one right! Obamacare specifies how much profit insurance companies can make, again you can't even get this one right!

And I never said that the government is telling us what job we will have. Stop listening to the voices in your head!

 

If the government in no way says what businesses can make or do, then why is it illegal to braid people's hair for money without a license?

 

Somebody's name has to be on the business license both to be able to operate and to provide the state with their sales tax revenue.

Seems to the name on that business license would be the final, definite entity responsible for any loans.

 

Why do you persist in posing ridiculous scenarios and predictions that will never happen? Is insanity all you have left? If you can't discuss this intelligently and seriously you can count me out. Have fun.

 

What you're asking is another ridiculous question of "then why are there regulations?"

 

The members of an LLC are the owners, and they would be liable for any loans they undertake. LLCs are a well-established business model. Heck, Chrysler is an LLC.

 

It's not a prediction. It's a fact of business. When employers must pay a minimum wage, low-skilled candidates will lose out in the competition for jobs against higher skilled applicants. Taking away an applicant's ability to compete based on price is cruel to the low-skilled worker.