Re: WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:35:42 -0400, Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:06:40 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
Schultz" <starfist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:32:44 -0400, Josh Hill wrote:

I don't rightly know. I'd say "higher," but at some point, you harm
the poor more than you help by increasing unemployment. So if I were
making the decision, I'd want to consult with economists to find out
where the point of inflection is -- the point at which the benefits to
the poor are maximized.

Economists can only guess. The free market doesn't make that mistake.
Minimum wage does *nothing* to increase the buying power of the people
earning it. In the short term, they lose jobs, until the market
adjusts to the new minimum wages by increasing costs for everything
else across the board.

Fortunately, economists can do more than guess. Their models and
projections may not be entirely accurate, but they don't have to be to
serve as a useful guide to policy.

Anyway, I don't think your explanation is correct. This isn't a
zero-sum game. If a store needs ten minimum-wage checkout clerks at 10
AM, they aren't going to lay some off just because the minimum wage
goes up. What they'll do for the most part is pass along the increase
to their customers. Which will lead to some minor income
redistribution, precisely the desired outcome.

The solution to not earning a living wage is to get a job that pays
one, not to try to turn mediocre jobs into ones that can support
families.

Unfortunately, that's an imaginary, let-them-eat cake solution for
many. Look at the unemployment figures in poor areas to see what I
mean. Or -- let's be frank -- look at some of these people themselves,
the retarded supermarket baggers, the checkout clerks who stand there
slack jawed when a coupon doesn't work. These people are never going
to teach French literature or write microcode.

The retarded supermarket bagger is already being supported by the
state for the most part - if he (or she) is not living at home with
(aging) parents, he is in a state-supported group home, or gets
benefits from the ARC. The low-paying job is there for two reasons (a)
to give the fellow something to do during the day besides watch TV and
(b) give him a little bit of spending money, since his basic needs are
already being met by others.

-Wendy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike
    ... the poor more than you help by increasing unemployment. ... Economists can only guess. ... In the short term, they lose jobs, until the market ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike
    ... the poor more than you help by increasing unemployment. ... Economists can only guess. ... Minimum wage does *nothing* to increase the buying power of the people ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: OT: Air America files for Chapter11
    ... but on Friday Air America said negotiations with a creditor ... With the buying power of the Federal minimum wage at its lowest point in 55 ... five Nobel Prize-winning economists have been joined by 650 of their ... "These esteemed economists understand what everyone except the Republican ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: OT: Air America files for Chapter11
    ... With the buying power of the Federal minimum wage at its lowest point in 55 ... five Nobel Prize-winning economists have been joined by 650 of their ... "These esteemed economists understand what everyone except the Republican ... "Millions of American families are living in poverty ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: OT-Re: Killer =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Clich=E9s?=
    ... and the poor are getting poorer. ... Economic data don't seem to support your claim. ... While economists tend to focus on things that can be measured in dollars and cents, the spiritual side of the economy has begun to garner more attention. ... the progress is significant for poor and rich alike. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)