l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 A reader asked me if I ever hired someone for the minimum wage. He also
believes the minimum wage is really a maximum wage.
From Drew ...
Mish, I’m curious if you have ever had to actually pay someone minimum
wage to work for you week in, week out, year after year?
I’ve signed plenty of paychecks myself, and honestly, I could never
employ someone and pay the minimum wage knowing it was not enough for that
person to live on, regardless of whether or not the “market” says I could
hire them for that price. I have willingly paid more, and they always very
much appreciated it, and I also felt like I got more effort since they knew
I was paying them more. But I know that’s not how large corporations work.
I believe you would argue whether or not the minimum is enough on which
to live is irrelevant and not the concern of the employer.
If that is correct, then what bothers me is that we have so many
businesses whose profitability relies on keeping these wages as low as
possible, for as long as possible, no matter how it affects them, no matter
how many are on food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized daycare,
subsidized transportation (bus and train passes), all of which are costs not
borne by the business but still must be paid in order for that employee to
work for minimum wage.
I believe there must be an ethical or moral argument that for a business
to be considered profitable it must be profitable for the various entities
that rely on that business to produce its profits. The supplier won’t
deliver the goods if they are not making a profit, and when Wal-Mart demands
a few cents off each pallet next year, it’s the lowest guy on the pyramid
that ends up paying for it.
Strangely enough, according to the history of the minimum wage it began
with King Edward III setting a maximum wage for laborers in 1348 after the
Black Plague.
The minimum wage law we have now is really a maximum wage for unskilled
labor, since according to the theory the wage paid would fall below the
minimum set if not fixed by law. How Orwellian they have managed to turn it
around and make it sound good by calling it a minimum when it really is a
maximum wage. This can easily be seen by the mega-corporations that rely on
paying minimum wage, and your earlier contention that every dollar increase
in the minimum wage would mean marginal locations closing and fewer jobs for
unskilled workers.
If they called it a maximum wage, how much easier it might be to
organize labor?
Well, I wish I had figured this out a long time ago. At least now I know
the truth.
Thanks.
Drew
Questions First
First, let's address Drew's question: I have not employed anyone, at any
wage, other than myself (self-employed).
Minimum Equal Maximum?
Drew is wrong about minimum being maximum and proof is voluntary pay hikes
by Walmart and McDonald's.
Living Wage Nonsense
The one thing Drew is correct about is that I would indeed argue "whether or
not the minimum is enough on which to live is irrelevant and not the
concern of the employer".
The primary concern of the employer is to make enough profit to stay in
business. The primary concern of a public business is to maximize
shareholder returns.
It must be that way. If the goal of businesses was hiring people rather than
to make a profit, no one would bother!
There are numerous businesses that could not make a profit at $15 an hour. I
wonder how many independently owned McDonald's franchises would go under at
a $15 minimum wage.
In theory, businesses could raise prices. In fact, they would have to.
But how many people think fast-food is already overpriced? It's a given that
the higher the minimum wage the lower the employment if for no other reason
than the drop in customer demand.
I have seen studies that attempt to disprove that statement. Such studies
are nonsense. Because of population growth and saturation of stores,
employment tends to go up over time in spite of minimum wage hikes, not
because of them.
Government Subsidies
Someone asked me the other day "Why is it OK for Walmart and McDonald's to
pay wages so low the employees have to be subsidized by the government?"
I responded with four questions:
Would we be better off if Walmart hired no one?
Who sets subsidies?
Are subsidies too high?
How many people on fixed income want and need low prices they would not
get if everything had a higher price?
The only way to pay people more is to hike prices or accept lower profit.
That sponsors still more questions.
What does higher prices do to those on fixed income with little savings?
Do we throw retirees under the bus like Bernanke did for the benefit of
a marginal number of people who get higher wages?
Many people are not worth the minimum wage. Some businesses have so little
profit they can only afford minimum wage
If McDonald's workers don't want to work there, why don't they quit? Why don
't they find another job or start their own business?
Make the minimum wage $15 and I 100% guarantee you there will be fewer
stores and lower overall employment.
Blame the Fed
If money went further, no one would be upset at the current minimum wage. In
fact, if money went far enough, people would be thrilled by the current
minimum wage.
The problem is not lack of a "living wage". The problem is the Fed demanding
higher prices in a deflationary world.
Businesses are not to blame for higher prices and income inequality. Those
protesting Walmart and McDonald's ought to be picketing the Fed. | a**e
发帖数: 8800 | 2 鼓吹最低工资应该上涨的后台就是财团们。
看历史购买力，以食物和房租为例，今天的最低工资的购买力和90年前没有什么区别。
每一次最低工资上涨后，经过很短时间，通常1年不到，全面物价上涨就会把这涨出来
的部分抵消掉。拿最低小时工资的人，以前要工作多少小时，现在仍然要工作多少小时
，而物价上涨的惯性往往会在3-4年后导致要工作更多的时间。
拿最低小时工资的人不会获得什么真正的帮助。
那为什么财团们要鼓吹呢？很简单，他们欠的债是以货币为计量的。在经济上升缓慢而
导致货币贬值速度远远不能符合他们的预期的时候，他们需要手段来加速货币的贬值。
然后中产们的储蓄，退休金，养老保险，投资的国债就迅速代表的价值就迅速的成为财
团的真正财产。
minimum
could
knew
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: A reader asked me if I ever hired someone for the minimum wage. He also
: believes the minimum wage is really a maximum wage.
: From Drew ...
: Mish, I’m curious if you have ever had to actually pay someone minimum
: wage to work for you week in, week out, year after year?
: I’ve signed plenty of paychecks myself, and honestly, I could never
: employ someone and pay the minimum wage knowing it was not enough for that
: person to live on, regardless of whether or not the “market” says I could
: hire them for that price. I have willingly paid more, and they always very
: much appreciated it, and I also felt like I got more effort since they knew
| j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 3 對，最低工資漲了這麼多回了，沒有解決根本問題。
這就是看空頭支票買選票而已。
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 鼓吹最低工资应该上涨的后台就是财团们。
: 看历史购买力，以食物和房租为例，今天的最低工资的购买力和90年前没有什么区别。
: 每一次最低工资上涨后，经过很短时间，通常1年不到，全面物价上涨就会把这涨出来
: 的部分抵消掉。拿最低小时工资的人，以前要工作多少小时，现在仍然要工作多少小时
: ，而物价上涨的惯性往往会在3-4年后导致要工作更多的时间。
: 拿最低小时工资的人不会获得什么真正的帮助。
: 那为什么财团们要鼓吹呢？很简单，他们欠的债是以货币为计量的。在经济上升缓慢而
: 导致货币贬值速度远远不能符合他们的预期的时候，他们需要手段来加速货币的贬值。
: 然后中产们的储蓄，退休金，养老保险，投资的国债就迅速代表的价值就迅速的成为财
: 团的真正财产。
| r***k
发帖数: 13586 | 4 如果真是通胀的话，中产是高兴的，因为大部分中产还是有大量房贷的，有钱的中产还
有很多投资房，其中同样有大量房贷。倒是所谓的储蓄什么的在美国人中是没有市场的
，百分之零点几的利率导致没人储蓄。至于股票市场，反正是花街操纵的，想涨就涨，
不关通胀什么事，财团们也不希望股市暴跌。
最低工资上涨的主要意义是让上班和不上班有更大的区别，毕竟还有大量不上班吃救济
的人，如果让拿最低工资的人和吃救济的人一样，那人家不如去吃救济，对经济更不利。
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 鼓吹最低工资应该上涨的后台就是财团们。
: 看历史购买力，以食物和房租为例，今天的最低工资的购买力和90年前没有什么区别。
: 每一次最低工资上涨后，经过很短时间，通常1年不到，全面物价上涨就会把这涨出来
: 的部分抵消掉。拿最低小时工资的人，以前要工作多少小时，现在仍然要工作多少小时
: ，而物价上涨的惯性往往会在3-4年后导致要工作更多的时间。
: 拿最低小时工资的人不会获得什么真正的帮助。
: 那为什么财团们要鼓吹呢？很简单，他们欠的债是以货币为计量的。在经济上升缓慢而
: 导致货币贬值速度远远不能符合他们的预期的时候，他们需要手段来加速货币的贬值。
: 然后中产们的储蓄，退休金，养老保险，投资的国债就迅速代表的价值就迅速的成为财
: 团的真正财产。
| a**e
发帖数: 8800 | 5 你错了。
经济低迷/停滞最低工资上涨带来的通胀和经济提升时的通胀是不同的。
前者不会带来中产的收入增加。也就是说物价会上涨但是中产的收入不会。
还有很多投资房，其中同样有大量房贷。倒是所谓的储蓄什么的在美国人中是没有市场的
利。
【在 r***k 的大作中提到】
: 如果真是通胀的话，中产是高兴的，因为大部分中产还是有大量房贷的，有钱的中产还
: 有很多投资房，其中同样有大量房贷。倒是所谓的储蓄什么的在美国人中是没有市场的
: ，百分之零点几的利率导致没人储蓄。至于股票市场，反正是花街操纵的，想涨就涨，
: 不关通胀什么事，财团们也不希望股市暴跌。
: 最低工资上涨的主要意义是让上班和不上班有更大的区别，毕竟还有大量不上班吃救济
: 的人，如果让拿最低工资的人和吃救济的人一样，那人家不如去吃救济，对经济更不利。
| Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 6 经济学101的话题没啥好讨论的。支持增加最低工资的必有不可告人的目的。 |
|
