That is one detriment, to be sure, Jill.

Another (and one that will no doubt effect me): I'm a few dollars above minimum wage. But when they raise minimum wage, my wages will continue unaffected. But because of the rising cost to businesses like you mentioned, the charge for goods and services will go up - while my wages are the exact same as before.

Translation? I get a pay cut.

Arrgh.

To me just the very existence of the Lowes store is a symptom of a lot of wrong things. Namely, the death of the "mom and pop" operation. I remember when you used to go to your local hardware store and the people that worked there, knowledeable people, who were paid a decent wage and cared, could actually help you with whatever project you were working on. Now you go into a Lowes and, while prices maybe cheaper, you're pretty much on your own.



I second that disclaimer!   

I missed the "Lowe's" part and was going to suggest you move to Oregon because you HAVE to have someone pump your gas there. Duh? Read a little slower, Moo.

Here's my deal with this issue: What about housing for these people? There is such an influx of people to our area that there are very few affordable housing options. McDonals, Lowe's, Smiths, Home Depot--they all need people to make them run well. And these people can't find housing because it's SO expensive. We pay $100 more per month here than we did in Las Vegas. This is a trash heap. We lived in a relative mansion in Las Vegas.

I don't know what the answer is. Thank God I'm not an economist. Or a social worker.

The answer is for people without skills to gain skills.

The second part is for dumb people who know nothing on economics not to advocate for minimum wage increases.

Minimum wage workers are, overwhelmingly, working jobs that require no real skill. Those kinds of jobs are most vulnerable to being automated by machines.

When you raise the minimum wage, you simply make the case to automate those jobs.

What's ironic is that at some level, even left-wingers understand the concept. For instance, we always hear how if oil prices go above a certain level, many alternative fuels become viable economically.  They understand that economic fact.  Yet, they fail to see the very same thing with the minimum wage. If you raise their costs above a certain level, many alternative means of getting the job done become viable (such as automation).

Excellent example of how minimum wage actually hurts the pool of workers it's "supposed" to help.

Another thing about a mandated minimum wage, it removes the incentive to earn and negotiate raises.  Employees who think they deserve a raise should be going to their employers, not to some government official.  They should also be doing the best job they can, since they are accepting a paycheck (in affect billing their employer).  Minimum wage, by its very name encourages "minimum work".  How many times have we heard minimum wage earners say, "If all they will pay me is minimum wage, all they will get is minimum work."  It's my experience that the people who say this never really give more than the minimum no matter how much above minimum wage they are paid.

I think money represents wealth.

But it is not wealth.

If somebody makes 5 dollars and another one makes 10 dollars, it means that the second creates twice as much wealth as the first (or at least that is how the market perceives the value of their production).

If a minimum wage law increases the 5 dollars to 6, it does not actually increase the wealth produced. Since money is not wealth but merely represents wealth, all that the law did was change the numbers, i.e. the units of measurement.

The market will, as Jill pointed out, adapt and our 10 dollar employee will soon make 12 dollars. And the 12 dollars will by what the 10 dollars used to buy. The result is inflation. And that's it. The process is also inefficient, which means that society will also lose some wealth (namely the resources required for distributing the measurement change and what the market loses when adapting the inflation rate).

Let me give a non-monetary example, which is perhaps easier to understand.

Length can be measured in many ways, but we can measure them, here, in a made-up unit called "toes". Let's say we have to runners, Dave and Floyd. Dave walks 500 toes a day, Floyd walks 1000 toes a day. (They have to keep fit. They are both overweight, especially Dave.)

Now the doctor (they have the same doctor because of socialised medicine, or perhaps they just chose the same one, I don't know) tells them that 1000 toes is enough, but 500 toes is NOT enough. Dave must walk more because he does not walk enough. Dave must walk 600 toes a day.

But Dave is not capable of walking more than 500 toes, because he is lazy and unqualified or unlucky (or one or two of the three).

The government steps in. The government look at the distance Dave walks every day (the wealth he creates) and decides to call it "600 toes". (Remember that "toes" is our unit of measurement. A "toe" is not a distance, it represents a distance.)

Problem solved.

But no, not really. Turns out Dave's body still thinks that the distance is really the same. And in contrast to the market, it cannot be cheated, not even for a year or so. Plus Floyd suddenly finds himself walking 1200 toes instead of 1000, even though he still walks the same actual distance. (In mathematics changing the unit travels faster than in the market.)

And Dave suddenly realises (or actually, others realise it for him) that 600 toes is not what he needs, he needs to walk more. Changing the unit did not help, as he still walks (creates wealth) half as much as Floyd.

Dave should walk at least 60% of the distance Floyd walks. That would be healthy. Forcing him to walk more would help. Changing the unit does not. But forcing him to work harder is not feasible in a free society. So perhaps Dave will simply have to learn that unless he creates more wealth (walks more) he will not become more wealthy (more healthy).

Right Leauki, money isn't wealth and making money doesn't create wealth. Wealth is Opportunity. Employees who work for their wages, never looking for opportunity for more, never create wealth, no matter how much their income may be. Their contribution to society begins and ends with the widget they make and the consumer goods they buy. There is nothing in minimum wage laws that create wealth. Those who create opportunity are what makes a society prosperous.

but according to gene non of this is going to happen. now who do i believe. i am so confused.

i have said it before and will say it again.


the only people who benefit from minimum wage increases are the politicians in Washington.


you see

1 it makes them look like they care.

2 it increases taxes with holding.

I am boggled as well when some stuffed shirt makes the claim that raising minimum wage hurts no one.  My evidence is working for a major retailer as the one who set the staffing levels for that company (a 2 billion dollar concern).  During the 80s, we had a lot of minimum wage increases.  And they were followed by raises for the affected people.  And then new automation that reduced the need for those people.

In one example (there are many), we went from an average of 22 people in one category of employment to 13. Over the course of years (this is not 22 doing the job all at once, as retailers are open more than 40 hours a week).  Now very few were "laid off" (that is an anathema to a company because of unemployment insurance), but as attrition thinned the ranks, no one was hired to replace them.  So maybe it does not hurt those currently employed (just for the sake of argument, as I have other evidence that shows otherwise), but it does hurt those trying to get employed.

There is a situation where an increase in the minimum wage does not hurt anyone.  That is when everyone is already making more than the minimum wage (that also means that the employees making more were unaffected by the raise).  IN that case, is it not just some feel good-do nothing pontificating by politicians?  But do not try to convince anyone inside the beltway of that.

Late to the game but I know the Domino's I used to work for had it's workforce slashed by the minimum wage hike. Even allowing for less employees the price of pizza still went up. Bad move all around.