Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Fine work by our new Nobelist"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Next in thread: Mark Monson: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:14:45 GMT
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:32:17 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:08:01 GMT, William F Hummel
><wfhummel@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>No, most of the jobs are unskilled to semi-skilled labor in various
>>>>services like serving up hamburgers or mowing lawns. Those kinds of
>>>>jobs cannot be exported.
>>>>
>>>But you cannot assume those companies would survive the higher labor
>>>costs.
>>
>>I don't agree at all. Their prices would have to increase along with
>>increases in the minimum wage.
>
>Indeed. How is inflation a good thing for the poor?
It reduces their debts. Duh.
>Inflation benefits
>those who have enough cash to buy precious metals, not the poor
>schmuck.
That is of course completely false. Inflation benefits debtors at the
expense of those who own currency and currency-denominated assets.
>>But the price increases would be
>>fairly small percentage-wise except in those companies in which almost
>>all of the operating costs are in minimum wage labor.
>
>I disagree! Labor costs are immense.
It's the overpaid CEOs whose labor cost is immense (in fact, of
course, their salaries are not wages but economic rent), not the
minimum wage workers'.
>To put more strain on businesses
>that employ the poor schumks, is to ask for trouble. In particular, it
>is an invitation for employers to employ illegals and to further
>increase the levels of illegal immigration.
Any law is going to give an advantage to lawbreakers if it isn't
enforced (see the War on Drugs). That's what enforcement is for.
>>I suspect that in a Mac franchise, for example, involving say eight
>>employees working at minimum wage, an extra dollar per hour (costing
>>the business an extra $64 per day) would be relatively modest in
>>comparison to other operating costs. It might have to increase the
>>cost of a hamburger by 10% or so -- big deal.
>
>Those 64 bucks a day could be used to employ one more person. As such,
>there is one less potential job available. As a consequence,
>employment would rise for the poor schumcks.
A certain number of people are typically needed to do a certain number
of jobs that have to be done at a given workplace. A McD franchise
doesn't just hire one more person. The work and the equipment are all
planned to require a certain number of people.
>>The basic effect would be to redistribute a relatively small amount
>>of financial wealth from their current customers to those working
>>at the ridiculously low minimum wages now in effect.
>
>Which is a bad thing in a of itself. It's Government mandated theft.
It's derisory compared to the roughly 20% of GDP that is handed over
to idle landowners for doing nothing. The minimum wage counters that
massive wealth transfer from working people to the rich. It's not the
best solution, but it's better than nothing.
>>California currently has a minimum wage of $6.75 per hour. In my
>>view, that should be increased by say $1 per hour every year until it
>>has reached about $11 per hour.
>
>California is hardly an example of a business-friendly place. Increase
>the minimum wage and more Mexicans will cross the border.
That's a separate issue.
-- Roy L
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: Budget Deficits Lead to lower or higher GDP?"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Fine work by our new Nobelist"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Next in thread: Mark Monson: "Re: The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
