Video: How minimum-wage increases kill job creation
posted at 1:36 pm on June 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity offers another entry in its Econ 101 series, this time about the minimum wage and the destructive consequences of government intervention in the job market. When Democrats insisted on passing the latest series of minimum-wage increases from $5.15 to $7.25, they claimed to have the interests of the poor and young in mind. However, the action destroyed those jobs normally accessible to those populations, even before the current recession began eliminating them. When the minimum wage remained below the floor of the market for entry-level positions, it did no direct harm, but the intervention by Congress in 2005 wound up hurting the low-skilled workers they claimed to champion:
It’s a good primer, but it may have been instructive to answer the question posed rhetorically at the end. Why don’t we just mandate a $100 per hour minimum wage? The answer is that compensation becomes relative in terms of buying power to price, which is relative to value. Artificially increasing wages forces producers to raise prices in order to cover costs. Price hikes reduce buying power. In the end, the market will find its equilibrium between the two forces (and many others), but not before it destroys a lot of jobs and capital, which makes the entire exercise pointless and counterproductive.
And here’s a better question to ponder. If the minimum wage produces no benefits when the labor-market floor is above the current level, and it produces job destruction when Congress resets it to above the value of entry-level labor for business, what possible point is there in maintaining the minimum-wage system?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Sure, minimum wage too high, people just hire illegals off books …
tarpon on June 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM
I wants my hunnerd dolla an hour jobs.
I wants some Obama money!
BacaDog on June 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Who pays minimum wage anymore? So no, there is no point.
upinak on June 15, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I always hired a kid for the summer to clean up around the shop and help my techs with projects. Could not afford to do it after the increase so a few kids have missed out on a great learning experience.
faol on June 15, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Answer: There is a lot of political capital to be gained by politicians who demagogue on the issue.
RedSoxNation on June 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM
duh!
moonbatkiller on June 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Anyone else here getting pounded by all the ads auto-playing audio? WTF?
Cuffy Meigs on June 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Yeah, that’s why we voted for him! Obama! Obama! Dip into your stash!
Daggett on June 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM
The folks standing in line for “Obama money” are not looking to work for it.
Doughboy on June 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Supply and demand is a law, right? So all Congress has to do is change the freaking law! Problem solved.
Simplicity is the one – and ONLY – strength of liberalism.
logis on June 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Yes, and it is irritating as hell!
lansing quaker on June 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Some people imagine that employers are merely parasites skimming off of the production of their workers.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM
There is an old Milton Friedman video from back in the early 1970s that says the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
crosspatch on June 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM
I always thought the Republicans should have passed a $25 an hour minimum wage when Clinton was President. He would have had to veto it.
rockmom on June 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM
With free trade, there is no justification for US workers making more than a Chinese worker. It’s a broken system either way. We’ll either pay US workers Chinese wages that no one living in the US can survive on, or we will be paying the workers artificially high wages that the companies can’t survive.
Meanwhile, lots of your Republicans, and even more of your Democrats, want to import more and more poverty laborers to drive justifiable wages down even further.
Buddahpundit on June 15, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Well, if it isn’t obvious to your backwoods-livin, sister-banging, Bible-thumpin, gun-totin, bitter clingin kind, you’re a racist. That’s the point.
Cheers,
DNC, DSCC, The White House
Good Lt on June 15, 2010 at 1:53 PM
If Obama makes sure I gets my hunnerd per hour job, can he pass a law to keep Budweiser at 4 dolla a sixpack?
PARTY, Baby!
BacaDog on June 15, 2010 at 1:54 PM
If you spend any time analyzing various policy issues with logical economic principals (suply & demand, etc), you will see a number of situations where the person who is supposed to be helped by the policy is actually hurt. And yet, the politican gets political capital for pushing the policy.
RedSoxNation on June 15, 2010 at 1:54 PM
If you are talking about the Federal Minimum wage, though, the point of that is to keep employers from moving their jobs from states with high state minimum wages (California, New York) to states with low minimum wages (southern stages), and to keep union labor more competitive with non-union labor.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Another ‘No Show’ for a donk delivered magic Skittle Crapping Unicorn.
jukin on June 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
I’m sure this minimum wage hike had NOTHING to do with the record numbers of unemployed among the young and unskilled we’re now experiencing.
Government FAIL.
Good Lt on June 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Damn good idea. They should do it now.
It would be comedy gold to see Pelosi keep that bill off of the floor.
BacaDog on June 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Here’s the point to Minimum wage. A little history lesson.
This is a quickie that references this link extensively:
The average liberal is generally for raising the minimum wage whenever the conversation comes around to it, and most conservatives fight this concept tooth and nail.
Why?
Most liberals assume that this is because conservatives are hateful monsters who despise poor people and want them to die. This is not true and if you understand the history of how the minimum wage came to be, you will understand the conservative view point a little better. At the link I provided – and I haven’t read it all I just skimmed because I was actually looking up Sidney Webb and “the unemployable classes” for an example of what I remember from history to illustrate – you will find that the progressive \ liberal party understood very well that the implementation of a “living wage” would kill jobs. You hear conservatives say this all the time. “Don’t raise the minimum wage. It will kill jobs.” Mostly liberals ignore us and do it anyway – and it kills jobs, forcing another swath of the barely surviving portion of the population onto government assistance and an early grave.
It really does.
And there was a time back in the day when liberals acknowledged this out loud as the intended outcome – with out fear of appearing mean or cruel.
I know. It sounds crazy. But when the minimum wage was enacted the IDEA of it was to do eactly that; put a certain class of people out of work and ostensibly kill them off. Read down to this paragraph on that link I gave you above:
Liberals WANTED the “unemployable classes” to die off and they worked several angles to make this happen – abortion being one, minimum wage being another.
Conservatives on the other hand, fight for the individual to be free to earn what he or she is worth and for the life of every child. Google some of this – learn actual American History. Know where these every day things originated and why they came to be and you will understand what the hell that crazy conservative is saying the next time the topic of minimum wage comes up in conversation.
BrideOfRove on June 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Remember the good ole days when Pelosi introducted the lastest minimum wage laws that for some reason excluded American Samoa and all of the fish canneries there, especially the ones her husband owns tons of stock in?
Oh and that time in 1995 that ACORN sued California to get an exemption to the minimum wage law, claiming they couldn’t hire enough people for their get out and vote campaign.
It has nothing to do with giving workers minimum wages, it was all about the power in DC.
Johnnyreb on June 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Compared to a debt of $130 Trillion…
… that is completely outrageous!
Seven Percent Solution on June 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM
“what possible point is there in maintaining the minimum-wage system?”
As Milton Friedman says in the video I noted above, the purpose of the minimum wage system is for the trade unions. It provides more jobs for the trade unions at higher rates of pay because it eliminates lesser skilled workers (potential competition for jobs) from the labor pool.
The entire purpose of minimum wage is to increase unemployment and force unskilled workers who want a job into the union.
crosspatch on June 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Starting wage is pretty irrelevant. In a lot of jobs, people aren’t even worth $1 an hour for the first week and a half, because they don’t know what they’re doing. In fact, you hope they don’t lose you $10 an hour while they take up other people’s time, trying to figure out what to do. And then, after they have it figured out, and are making money for you, you don’t really need the government to tell you how much they’re worth.
RBMN on June 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Want to reduce the cost of unemployment? Eliminate the minimum wage, and adjust UE benefits so that instead of a pure subsidy they scale to fill in the amount left between the benefit level and what a person earns.
Fighton03 on June 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, I see that they are contributors to this…too bad they are not black…
right2bright on June 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Why don’t we just make the minimum wage also be the maximum wage and be done with the whole thing?
platypus on June 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM
That is a static view of the situation. The cost of living increases in China as their production increases, and the cost of living in the US is reduced as things get cheaper from the increase in efficiency. The unemployed in the US are available to do other things, or they would be if things like minimum wage laws weren’t making it illegal to do the work they can.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Minimum Wage = Culling of the workforce.
Just remember that and then think about what culling actually means.
diabolical isn’t it?
BrideOfRove on June 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Or Feinstein not unionizing her farms because it put her at a disadvantage in the market place…but fought for other farms to be unionized…
right2bright on June 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM
That’s not Obama’s money, that’s my money! Keep your hands out of my pockets.
shick on June 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM
A friend had a small restaurant, and had 4 waitresses. When they started raising the min wage, they had to layoff one and and make another parttime, because of the additional taxes that are added on the wage
ConservativePartyNow on June 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM
It also creates a permanent underclass of voters dependent on government and regulation.
Fighton03 on June 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Pure Logical Capitalism is to pay just enough for your employee to eat.
PrezHussein on June 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM
1 word: unions
Most union contracts have a formula for wages that includes the minimum wage. The higher the min. wage, the higher the union wages.
You didn’t really think SEIU goons give a damn about a McDonald’s worker did you?
angryed on June 15, 2010 at 2:07 PM
That implies that you have a monopoly on employment. When employers compete for workers, the wage is necessarily higher or they don’t get any employees.
(The situation you are talking about is what effectively happened when miners were stuck in mining towns. Mobility is key.)
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Ditto. I’m not liking the new ads at Hot Air at all. Got one with animated humping dogs in the header earlier, along with the blasting sound that forced me to mute my speakers.
aero on June 15, 2010 at 2:11 PM
There is that, but more over, a minimum wage prevents certain stratagees of highering more workers at a lower wage, and thus increases the demand for union labor (which often has more impact than a contract that can be re-negotiated).
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Firefox + adblock.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Minimum- and prevailing-wage laws favor organized labor
The Monster on June 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Hotair has ads?
Inanemergencydial on June 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Switch your internet browser to Firefox. It blocks all that stuff. It’s great.
visions on June 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Minimum wage law discussion = Liberal head implosion.
visions on June 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM
not true…..it is to pay the cost of hiring the next most skilled person.
Fighton03 on June 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM
OT (sorry!)/ Fresh from Israel previously unreleased footage spliced into what we’ve all seen that gives the full story of the Gaza Flotilla, appx 8min.
Apologies, but we need to get this out there, forwarded to Ed already, so I hope to see it up on the board soon.
Archie
Archimedes on June 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Damn! Forgot the link, here goes….
http://www.cjhsla.org/news.php
Archimedes on June 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Exactly. What it “implies” is that what you’re talking about is NOT capitalism, but is instead Socialism.
And there’s nothing in the least bit “logical” about that.
logis on June 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Isn’t that part of the “financial overhaul”? All those people who make “too much money”
Is it just me or do the 2012 campaign ads just write themselves? If Obama won, by running against Bush…. just think of the margins the Conservatives will win by going after Obama – Pelosi and Reid!
2nd Ammendment Mother on June 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Bride of Rove, slight problem. Those guys didn’t forsee that putting these people on the dole would encourage them to breed, not stop it.
fivefeetoffury on June 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Socialists have always been bad at that unintended consequences thing.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM
A Federal or State Minimum wage law is nothing but a socialist control tool, much like other tools in that box. The government has established a base price for one unit of labor, no matter the job or skill level, you can’t (legally) hire a person to work for you without paying that set amount, even if that person is willing to work for less.
Johnnyreb on June 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Thus encouraging you to hire someone who you can blackmail into not reveling that you are paying them less than minimum wage. Like someone that is in the country illegally.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Lemme guess – it was an ad for a spay & neuter clinic. Or was an ad for a puppy mill. Or an ad for canine viagra. Or a link to a sex ed seminar. Or…
I’m done now.
platypus on June 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Lemme guess – it was an ad for a spay & neuter clinic. Or was an ad for a puppy mill. Or an ad for canine vi@gra. Or a link to a sex ed seminar. Or…
I’m done now.
platypus on June 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Most people knew this ahead of time.
It’s not quite as bad though. Not all of those jobs have gone away, the have merely gone under the table. Good. More will follow.I used to be wary of that practice, but I will now embrace it until these clowns in DC and Boston prove they can spend responsibly.
To parahrase, In God we Trust, and I’m using more cash.
The more you tax, the less money you will have to be taxed. The more you force social-engineering through jobs, the less jobs you will have. Reap it, fools.
reaganaut on June 15, 2010 at 2:37 PM
What a stream of claptrap. You have been reading stuff and taking it on faith without considering whether on not it’s even logical, or you are simply making it up as you go.
Buddahpundit on June 15, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Pelosi on minimum wage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo
She does not pay all her interns the minimum wage.
nazo311 on June 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Now I’m confused. Are you playing the clueless projecting socialist?
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Also worth noting, that this is also a bigger kick in the teeth to small business owners. Obama hates small business owners.
Look at what they have been doing or trying to do, it’s hurts small businesses more. $#%!!*& unions…
reaganaut on June 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Okay, I’m in Firefox now. Ads are still there. Do I need to install an extension or app of some sort to block the ads?
aero on June 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM
My daughter is a single mother working for a hotel-software company in ND.
She makes over $11/hr + pays her med ins (as a single) + health club membership w/ NO college education & no experience.
They spent a lot of time training her & she learned fast & works well.
The supervisor kinda monkeys around w/ her schedule sometimes, but she’s satisfied w/ her job overall.
She works hard, shows up on time, & gets the same treatment as the guy who doesn’t.
I see this a lot in places where it’s hard to find ANY help.
You see, here in ND, there are not ENOUGH people for the jobs that are available, & that has a lot to do w/ the oil boom here as well as a housing shortage where she’s at.
She recently went to the housing authority for some help w/ the rent of an apartment she was lucky enough to find available (it’s a bi$%^ finding available housing bcs of the oil field workers) & everything, even dirt hovels, are extremeley expensive, which is why she gritted her teeth & applied for the assistance.
Come to find out, she makes $1000 too much per year, as well as the rent is $25/mo too LESS, & that is why they will not help her.
She feels stupid for wasting all that time jumping through hoops for some help.
She finds that she could get a crappy job at Wal-Mart, work for way less, & actually do BETTER bcs she would then qualify for the housing assistance, food stamps, etc.
Thank God my kid wants to work for a living, has a great work ethic, & has some pride in providing for herself.
She feels humiliated when she uses her WIC coupons, but I told her not too feel bad bcs she’s truly in need & she pays taxes, too.
Someday she won’t need help bcs she’s bettering herself.
But isn’t it amazingly stupid that the govt has created such a parasitic system that encourages people to be deadbeats?
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM
adblock pluss
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but where do I find it?
aero on June 15, 2010 at 2:53 PM
That’s where my ignorance kicks in. I think you can just google it, though.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Speaking of small business owners-
My husband started commercially trucking.
We just bought a newer truck & went to get the license changed to it.
The commercial license WOULD have been transferable w/out additional $$ IF we had sold the truck BEFORE or ON the same day we were transferring the license (even though we are not driving that truck-hence the reason for the license transfer), but bcs we had not sold the old truck yet, we were forced to buy ANOTHER commercial license (that was still going off the date of the old one & is to be renewed again in 6 months as per the renewal date of the OLD license).
So here we are penalized for trying to better our business bcs we are unaware of all these crippling, hidden costs.
And extra $2000+ dollars for our ignorance.
OMG I am sick of this $hit.
We run a ranch & are trying to run a commercial truck business (1 truck), & every time we turn around, we’re getting hit w/ this tax & that tax, or this ‘fee’ & that ‘fee’.
It is bcs of this we cannot have the cow #s we used to have bcs we cannot afford a hired man w/ all these ‘rules’.
It really makes you almost want to give upo & go on welfare sometimes.
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM
What is clueless, projecting and socialist about my comments?
Don’t fall into a trap where you feel the need to say things like “the less laborers make, the better off they actually are” in trying to sound fiscally conservative.
Buddahpundit on June 15, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Nice, smart dude, but I prefer the hot econo-babe in the other vid :-)
MJBrutus on June 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM
I do think this free trade nonsense is nothing but easy cheap labor for companies.
Really, the biggest problem I have w/ free trade is that it really isn’t ‘free’ at all.
If or govt didn’t have such ridiculous, onerous, silly, nonsensical rules regarding business in this country, there would be no incentive for companies to leave here (other than the disparity between countries’ economies compared to each other-but isn’t that what tariffs are for?).
In some cases w/ this ‘free’ trade, people can be exploited bcs they’ll work for cheap bcs that’s where the jobs are coming from.
I do think Chinese city-folks’ standards of living have increased from this weird form of capitalism.
But I personally do not buy Chinese products when I have a choice bcs I notice they usually fall apart really fast.
You get what you pay for.
But if a person isn’t worth min wage & the market won’t support it, why should you hire that person?
Just wondering.
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM
More Democrats voting themselves more entitlements. It all works out. Tribbles.
BrideOfRove on June 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM
So, you were serious? Then read through my comments again, this time with an open mind.
Actually, at this point, the less laborers demand in terms of wages, the better off they would be (in aggregate), because the unemployment problem is because wages are too high for the current state of the market. Thinking otherwise is the trap people fall into.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Most of the effects of opening up foreign markets you see initially are transition effects: business moves to take advantage of new opportunities. This might hurt some people directly, but helps just as many directly (and everyone indirectly), and the final equilibrium is more production all around.
That is, unless governments throw up hindering restrictions in the hopes of mitigating the pain of transition for the few.
Count to 10 on June 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM
And if you don’t like what you’re making, like I did at one point, go get another one or get some training, i.e. schooling etc., so it will enable you to make more.
I didn’t like the $6/hr I was making as a secretary so I quit the job, borrowed some $$ (yes, fed subsidized loans I am currently paying back), & got a degree so I could make more $$ & have a career that would give me some stability job-wise.
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 4:07 PM
If productivity and everything else were identical in the United States and China, then wages would be the same, regardless of the presence or absence of trade between the two. As it is, the United States remains far more productive than China (and there are also differences in relative abundance of labor, labor market structure, etc.), justifying higher wages in the United States. I do think that China’s maintenance of an intentionally low fixed exchange rate deserves an American response, but this is an entirely separate debate.
You are correct as to the effects of illegal immigration. In particular, it hurts less-skilled workers and drives some of the lowest-skilled workers out of the labor market, since they’re displaced by illegals being employed at less cost than the legal minimum.
DKCZ on June 15, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Raising the minimum wage does have a positive effect on companies that manufacture equipment that automate what was originally done by a person. Of course, that scenario results in higher unemployment and undermines the whole notion of entry level jobs.
AltTuning on June 15, 2010 at 4:11 PM
I don’t have a problem with foreign trade.
I have a problem when I produce a product that is cheaper in another country bcs of their different economy, their different govt ‘rules’ (like being able to take short-cuts, use drugs, etc that I cannot), their tariffs on incoming & outgoing goods, as well as govt programs subsidizing a product (like farm programs etc.).
I just want a level playing field.
And bcs the govt currently vilifies small businesses & producers (through taxes, rules, etc), it makes it impossible to compete with these other nations.
That’s the problem I have.
I am more than willing to compete with other countries with the product that I produce.
I just think it’s sick they’re making me do it with both hands tied behind my back.
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM
I’ve seen it happen.
How many Americans have been deprived of jobs they wants bcs an illegal is working for less?
These employers need to be held accountable.
And then why are these employers doing this?
Is it just bcs they’re greedy, or is there also another motive?
Could it be they’re being taxed to death?
Badger40 on June 15, 2010 at 4:18 PM
You can’t justify hiring an American employee to do the work for dollars that a Chinese worker will do for pennies. That’s the problem.
The question is how do you create the circumstances that allow US workers to continue with a good standard of living while at the same time ensuring that those wages are justified ( rational ). You create demand for goods and labor by allowing fewer goods and laborers into your country. There isn’t even much of a demand to outsource when the end product won’t be coming back into the US.
You can argue that those justifiable wages you will have created aren’t “natural” because you limited foreign competition, but they are still justified wages on the playing field that you’ve created and that can be sustained.
Buddahpundit on June 15, 2010 at 4:27 PM
This weekend, I realized that the minimum wage is probably what created self-checkout lines. If grocery stores could hire kids at low wages, they might not have invested in the technology.
Now, I go to the store and generally see 2 or 3 cashiers standing idle, while people scan their own stuff. How long before those last cashiers are also eliminated?
The minimum wage provides an impetus for using technology to replace menial jobs. That’s both a bad thing and a good thing.
hawksruleva on June 15, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Increasing the federal minimum wage had no effect here in Oregon – it’s still less than the state minimum wage.
The job numbers are a hard sell since the entire economy is shedding jobs and people are being pushed “down” from secretary to fast food, bookkeeper to secretary, etc.
However, it does hurt the poor. It pushes the low skilled out the bottom, but even more, companies don’t just say “Fine, we’ll eat the loss.” They raise their prices. So now the buying power of everybody is reduced, which hurts everybody equally but can be absorbed less by the poor.
PastorJon on June 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Australia has a much higher minumum wage than the US and yet has much lower unemployment. Why? I’m confused.
Crux Australis on June 15, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Because those aren’t the only two factors in an economy. We’re talking about changing something in a complex system and what results it has, you don’t just move over to a completely different complex system and look at static figures to compare.
I could also point out that California has a higher minimum wage than the US on average – and higher unemployment.
The point is that, from where you stand right now, if Australia raised its minimum wage even higher, unemployment would increase due to the factors described and discussed at length above and in the original post, as well as increased prices reducing the effective wage for those with low incomes.
Merovign on June 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM
My first job started at minimum wage, a few months after I earned raise the government decided the minimum wage needed to be increased. The results: 1) the slackers got the hourly pay increase that I had earned 2) to control costs everyone hours were reduced 3) with the reduced hours I ended up making less per week than before the minimum wage was increased.
agmartin on June 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM
I was reading a lefty blog last night and the author said something interesting. In his mind raising the minimum wage was a way for government to increase taxes – social security taxes specifically – without actually raising taxes. By going from $5/hr to $7/hr government effectively generated $0.24/hr for every minimum wage job.
At least that was his idea of “fixing” social security.
Onus on June 15, 2010 at 7:59 PM
The reason the minimum wage is a winner for Democrats is because raising the minimum wage benefits skilled labor aka union workers.
Sackett on June 15, 2010 at 8:52 PM
. just think of the margins the Conservatives will win by going after Obama – Pelosi and Reid!
2nd Ammendment Mother on June 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Can we start calling them “The Three Stooges” now, or do we have to wait until November???
(I can hardly wait…)
landlines on June 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Can we start calling them “The Three Stooges” now, or do we have to wait until November???
(I can hardly wait…)
landlines on June 15, 2010 at 8:58 PM
the concern you people show for Americans is overwhelming
Observation on June 16, 2010 at 1:39 AM
This point keeps getting made, and the Dems keep raising the minimum wage anyway, and unemployment keeps going up among the unskilled, just as could be predicted.
Maybe the best way to argue the point is to ask the question: what is more valuable to an unskilled laborer: a job paying below the minimum wage, or no job at all. Because that is exactly the choice that is being made.
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 16, 2010 at 1:45 AM
It protects and give ammo for the Unions to move their wage base higher…………that is the real root cause.
the left could care less about the poor…..everything they do it cause and effect on Unions….
sbark on June 16, 2010 at 6:18 AM
The answer to this question lies in the video when the host is discussing the market minimum from a few years back. That amount was about $5.50/hr., yet the government minimum was set below that at $5.15/hr. This is key. The government minimum wage should always be set at, or below, the market minimum wage. Further, the reason that we should maintain a minimum wage is to protect workers who are not skilled, or who may be a bit slow, from a potential employer that may take advantage of them by paying well below the market minimum wage. After all, human nature is to try to improve one’s situation and you cannot deny that there are unscrupulous employers out there who try to screw employees every chance they get.
Troy Rasmussen on June 16, 2010 at 10:31 AM
If you see what I said earlier, that disparity between compared economic conditions should be balanced by tariffs or something to that effect.
I am not advocating paying American workers Chinese wages.
What I am saying is that if the artificially mandated minimum wage does not support the specific job, then there is no incentive to hire someone for that position.
Those positions that would have initially been hired at a lower wage will now just be absorbed by the other employees.
This happens all the time-make fewer workers do the work of many. Multitasking.
This burdens everyone else, but saves the employer huge costs, allowing him to keep these people employed in the first place.
There are employers who are terrible to their employees, screwing them at every possible turn.
I have worked for places like this.
I quit working for them once I got treated like crap.
They have high turnover rates.
I was exploited in high school working at an ice cream shop for $2.35/hr in 1986-87. My boss said it was justified bcs we would make up the rest in tips.
But the work atmosphere did not encourage tips & we were not allowed to have a tip jar anywhere in the store.
I stayed there bcs I was a dumb kid & wanted the closest job to home.
I wouldn’t put up w/ that crap as an adult.
I believe much of the problem with jobs going overseas is union demands, onerous govt regulation, & WTO agreements that are hurtful to us.
These trade agreements we have with some countries seem to encourage abuse.
It would do to take a second look at a lot of them.
Badger40 on June 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM
I’ll speculate that part of it is due to the difference in population. Australia has 22,385,479 people; the U.S. has more than 10 times that number, 309,511,000. Also I’m under the impression Australia has proportionally fewer illegal immigrants. (I know there are some, but not having a land border with any other country probably helps!)
Mary in LA on June 16, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Depends on the work. If the work has to be done in a particular location (e.g. construction work), or requires a particular skill set, or (say) a security clearance, then you certainly can justify hiring an American worker over a Chinese one.
Mary in LA on June 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM