SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports:
Think a higher minimum wage is a job killer? Think again: The states that raised their minimum wages on January 1 have seen higher employment growth since then than the states that kept theirs at the same rate.
The minimum wage went up in 13 states Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington either thanks to automatic increases in line with inflation or new legislation, as Ben Wolcott reports in his analysis at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The average change in employment for those states over the first five months of the year as compared with the last five of 2013 is 0.99 percent, while the average for all remaining states is 0.68 percent.
Digging deeper, all but one of those states are experiencing increases in employment, and nine of them have seen growth above the median rate.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Friday July 04 2014, @04:45PM
give a dollar to less rich person and you'll see more of that dollar spent in your immediate market. give a dollar to a rich person (CEO, investment banker, oligarch, tech billionaire) and you'll see very little to zilchmo of that dollar returned to the local market. (the less rich person can't afford to invest it in overseas factory futures) so, (by this means), do we come to understand how putting more money in the hands of those with less money does more for your local economy [Stephen Colbert hand dusting gesture]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday July 04 2014, @05:32PM
Consider yourself up-modded. It shouldn't be rocket science, but the above doesn't seem to be appreciated by too many people in decision-making positions. It's the fallacy of trickle-down economics, which deep down has never been anything but the economics of greed.
And I say that as someone relatively rich in a fairly poor country, who tries to make sure as much of my expenditure as possible is into the hands of local companies, and even local market traders. (Who sorted me out with a stunning piece of tenderloin yesterday, probably the best I've had in my life. Beef tartare, and steak for the rest of the weekend for me and my g/f! And that includes breakfast - it was huge!)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @07:42PM
Give a dollar to the rich and you'll see it invested. Give it to the poor and you'll see it transferred to the rich and then invested. If your economy is so unattractive that you can't keep investment, then you will have problems no matter who you give the money to.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 05 2014, @06:53AM
Give a dollar to the rich and they will invest it in China to decrease costs. Give it to the poor and they will spend it locally, it'll pass through a few hands enhancing the local economy before it is transferred to the rich and invested in another country.
If another country treats its people as shit or even just has a much lower cost of living and free trade agreements allow money to be invested overseas then you have problems, especially if the rich of that other country are driving up the local cost of living. (Here the Chinese upper classes are driving up housing prices to insane levels where most employed people can't afford a home)
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday July 06 2014, @12:31AM
The point here is that keeping investment is far more powerful than giving out money to the poor. You aren't enhancing the local economy, but merely prolonging by a little bit the departure of wealth from your society by choosing who you pass the wealth on to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:58AM
We're not talking about giving money to the poor, we're talking about paying people who are working full time a living wage. You know, enough money to meet basic needs, maintain a decent standard of living and participate as equal members of society. Hopefully eventually they get even better paying jobs that allow things like vacations, saving for retirement (a living wage would mean a couple of weeks of emergency funds), paying off student loans and other debt and perhaps caring for the aging relative.
Besides the obvious benefits of having everyone feeling like they are part of society rather then outside and sucking resources, whether through government assistance or crime they'd be spending money in the local economy. While as you say, the wealth is going to depart eventually at least it would do some good first.
Having tons of money tied up in the Canary Islands doesn't really help the local citizens of N. America and as the last decade has shown, the rich getting richer hasn't improved things for the average person, little well the lower then average.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday July 07 2014, @02:44AM
Unless they lose their job. And where's the long term incentive to invest in these more expensive employees? You have to stop eating the seed corn at some point.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 07 2014, @03:53AM
The long term incentive is to have higher employee loyalty, productivity, lower absenteeism, less employee turnover and saving money by not having to hire and train new employees.
We're not talking about eating the seed corn, rather using it to grow corn for eating and having more seed corn.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday July 07 2014, @08:37PM
The same long term incentives exist in the absence of a minimum wage. People aren't going to jump ship just because someone out there is earning less than a certain arbitrary amount.
Further, this actually has advantages. Someone who is willing to work cheap demonstrates a number of positive traits which an employer would like. The employer can thus pay more to keep those who demonstrate such fitness. Unpaid interns do this all the time, I might add, so it's not some alien thing that businesses won't touch.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday July 08 2014, @05:15AM
Of course they are, with that arbitrary amount varying but basically less then what is needed to live. Witness the 2 million plus prison population in the States and remember that most criminals don't get caught.
Would you work for less then it costs you to eat? At least for an extended time.
I wouldn't hire someone who was willing to work too cheap, with the exception of perhaps a kid or someone who wasn't working for their livelihood.
Unpaid interns are one of the most abused positions there are. Though the idea of working cheap or even for free for a short while to learn enough to get paid more is fine. I've even offered to do it in the past, no employer accepted.
Perhaps you dream of going back to slave labour or an economy like Qatar where the labour abuse reaches amazing highs.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 08 2014, @01:35PM
You'll have to take my word for it, but I'm rolling my eyes. You can live on a lot less than minimum wage. Buy bulk food, live with a bunch of people, etc. In addition, low wages aren't a permanent state of affairs. If you can show that you're a good worker and you pick up some skills, then you can earn more than bottom of the barrel wages. OTOH, if you're a shitty worker who can't be bothered to learn the basics like how to show up to work on time or when not to take recreational drugs, then I can't be bothered to care.
It's worth noting that there are a fair number of people who can actually afford to work for less than starvation wages. That's because they have a second income source. Most teenagers fall into this category (their parent(s) work), for example.
Further, we need to remember that the actual minimum wage is zero dollars per hour. If you're not working at all, then you can't pay for your own food, place to live, etc and you're even more stuck than if you have a job that at least makes ends meet.
Of course not. Because I don't have to and I'm pretty cheap to feed as well.
Well, you have to put the people who aren't worth hiring at minimum wage somewhere. Prison is one of the big places where the perpetually unemployed go.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 07 2014, @05:36AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 08 2014, @01:59PM
Minimum wage doesn't create more experienced companies or employees.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 08 2014, @03:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:11PM
Exploting workers does not create experienced companies or employees.
That's a separate issue from minimum wage. You really ought to look into all these hidden assumptions you are making. A certain level of pay doesn't make exploitation. Nor is exploitation of workers automatically something which proscribes experienced companies or employees. After all, any employer can be considered to exploit their employees. That is the whole point of employment - exploitment in exchange for wages.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:32PM
No, it isn't.
"A certain level of pay doesn't make exploitation."
What an absurd thing to say... Yes, it most certainly and obviously does. You'd seriously have to be unaware of cost-of-living to assert something like that.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈