Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Lowering the minimum wage = crazy?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 60 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230
Buzz Killington posted on Fri, Sep 7 2012 11:30 AM

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2m3fupf.jpg

One free market/libertarian answer to unemployment and poverty is lowering the minimum wage. My question is, how the heck are people supposed to live off a lower minimum wage?

The minimum wage is already pretty low, if we lower it to say 3-4 dollars an hour, how is someone supposed to survive off that income?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Verified by Buzz Killington

Characteristics of minimum wage workers:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less

Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent).

Conclusion? The minimum wage affects the young, never married people. Not established families with children.

By creating a disemployment effect at younger years, the minimum wage prevents young workers from gaining the work experience that results in higher wages. If child labor and minimum wage laws were repealed, kids could 1) Earn some money while still with their parents so that they could start off life with a financial cushion, and 2) Gain work experience which makes them more attractive for better employment.

I'd really like to see their data. I want to do a regression analysis controlling for marital status, age, and hours worked per week. Especially since for people who work at least 40 hours of week who are paid at or below Min Wage sum to 1.7%. Older married people with children who work full time appear to be exactly NOT the demographic that works at or below min wage.

Remove other harmful things like the drug war (and consider the industry it would allow to create), and you have yourself a very likely improvement in the lives of people.

  • | Post Points: 40
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Verified by Buzz Killington

 

 

 

All out of http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/SSN.php

 

And from the "Costs" article above,

 

Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents
of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the
poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split. 
In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private
charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar
donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to
recipients. Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent. 
  • | Post Points: 25

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Verified by Buzz Killington

Characteristics of minimum wage workers:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less

Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent).

Conclusion? The minimum wage affects the young, never married people. Not established families with children.

By creating a disemployment effect at younger years, the minimum wage prevents young workers from gaining the work experience that results in higher wages. If child labor and minimum wage laws were repealed, kids could 1) Earn some money while still with their parents so that they could start off life with a financial cushion, and 2) Gain work experience which makes them more attractive for better employment.

I'd really like to see their data. I want to do a regression analysis controlling for marital status, age, and hours worked per week. Especially since for people who work at least 40 hours of week who are paid at or below Min Wage sum to 1.7%. Older married people with children who work full time appear to be exactly NOT the demographic that works at or below min wage.

Remove other harmful things like the drug war (and consider the industry it would allow to create), and you have yourself a very likely improvement in the lives of people.

  • | Post Points: 40
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

My suspicion is that of the people that society would be most worried about being paid at or below minimum wage, maybe only 2% or less actually do get paid this much. Include the likelihood that they are affected by the drug war or the recession (both reasonable hypothesis and both problems created by the government) and you have yourself a minuscule amount of the relevant population being paid minimum wage. All other groups, which are not "at risk"  and who have higher percentages being paid at or minimum wage are hurt much more because they are at the margin.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
275 Posts
Points 4,000

... So they work and get a welfare check. I see. You want to legalize welfare fraud.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

John James:
...you're asking what is the better alternative to stealing from people?  I don't know...not stealing from people?

How does that help, except if you're talking about untaxing teh poor?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

Buzz Killington:
John James:
...you're asking what is the better alternative to stealing from people?  I don't know...not stealing from people?
How does that help, except if you're talking about untaxing teh poor?

How does not stealing help?  How does me not punching you in the face help?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

HabbaBabba:
... So they work and get a welfare check. I see. You want to legalize welfare fraud.

No, I want to reform the welfare system, and if you're confused this only applies to unskilled laborers.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

John James:
How does not stealing help?  How does me not punching you in the face help?

How is punching me in the face helping anything?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

Wheylous:
The minimum wage affects the young, never married people. Not established families with children.

By creating a disemployment effect at younger years, the minimum wage prevents young workers from gaining the work experience that results in higher wages. If child labor and minimum wage laws were repealed, kids could 1) Earn some money while still with their parents so that they could start off life with a financial cushion, and 2) Gain work experience which makes them more attractive for better employment.

I'd really like to see their data. I want to do a regression analysis controlling for marital status, age, and hours worked per week. Especially since for people who work at least 40 hours of week who are paid at or below Min Wage sum to 1.7%. Older married people with children who work full time appear to be exactly NOT the demographic that works at or below min wage.

Remove other harmful things like the drug war (and consider the industry it would allow to create), and you have yourself a very likely improvement in the lives of people.

My suspicion is that of the people that society would be most worried about being paid at or below minimum wage, maybe only 2% or less actually do get paid this much. Include the likelihood that they are affected by the drug war or the recession (both reasonable hypothesis and both problems created by the government) and you have yourself a minuscule amount of the relevant population being paid minimum wage. All other groups, which are not "at risk"  and who have higher percentages being paid at or minimum wage are hurt much more because they are at the margin.

I'm against the minimum wage, but I don't know how it would work without some sort of welfare to support the people earning 3 bucks an hour.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

Buzz Killington:
John James:
How does not stealing help?  How does me not punching you in the face help?
How is punching me in the face helping anything?

Well, not punching you in the face certainly isn't helping anything, so we might as well TRY SOMETHING amiright?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,258 Posts
Points 34,610

Why does welfare have to be financed via compulsory taxation? Why not allow private welfare to take over? Historically that's worked fine.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

Autolykos:
Why do you implicitly assume that everyone working for the minimum wage has no other means of support whatsoever?

Because most of them don't. Name a means of support your average shaniqua has for her 5 kids in da hood when welfare is abolished.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

John James:
Well, not punching you in the face certainly isn't helping anything, so we might as well TRY SOMETHING amiright?

Not unless you can tell me why not punching me in the face is a problem.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Buzz Killington:
Because most of them don't. Name a means of support your average shaniqua has for her 5 kids in da hood when welfare is abolished.

I see you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Too bad such mindtricks won't work on me.

Now then, since you claim that most people (which isn't the same as everyone) working for the minimum wage have no other means of support whatsoever, do you have any evidence to back that up? Systematic studies would be especially nice.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
275 Posts
Points 4,000

Prostitution

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110

Buzz Killington:

Because most of them don't. Name a means of support your average shaniqua has for her 5 kids in da hood when welfare is abolished.

 
Just above, Wheylous posts actual facts that directly refute your absurd claim.
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 2 of 5 (61 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS