This globalist pig must agree with the concept of placing American Labor in direct competition with 4 billion Asian workers, who will work for pennies. The founders provided a protectionist economy that served the country well until globalization became the craze.
amazing how people dont believe that wage are negotiatable. your wage is the exchage of your time and labor for money/payment. therefore if the pay is too low then you turn it down. thus negotiating.
If I walk into a store and they can't afford to hire me at $8 with this economy. Then with minimum wage I remain unemployed. But what if I am willing to work for 4 dollars an hour(believe me I would) and that employer can afford that then it's a win-win for both of us. With teenagers they don't have to worry so much on supporting themselves since they still live with their parents. I also seriously doubt that the wage would be $1-2 dollars since people wont work for that little.
The real minimum wage is zero. If you don't work at all, you make zero; if you work, you make something; if you work harder, you'll make more... Is that a myth?
Labor is your own personal property and if you want to offer that property in exchange for any amount, then you should be able to do this. It is also funny how the minimum wage does get lowered during times of deflation. This always moving upward, but never down causes poor service and experiences at many businesses. Did you think they were going to keep the same number of people when they have a bottom line to meet? get a clue liberals. Minimum wage is used to buy votes for democrats.
if there werent any minimum wage, who decides the lowest wage? seriously, the lowest wage might end up being a dorm room apartment on top of the factory and 2 meals a day. slaves had a roof over there head and hot meals too!
@Scoforever ok. explain it? as far as from a laborers wages. who decides where the bottom of the graph is? market equilibrium explains wages as supply and demand already exist.
People wanting jobs and people wanting to hire, negotiate on a wage. If the person wanting a job feels that the employer is being unreasonable, they go somewhere else. If the employer feels that the employee is being unreasonable, they hire someone else.
@Scoforever this is the problem. "negotiate on wage"? since when did a low wage job negotiate the wage? when i was 18-22 i was had several different low paying jobs and the wage was never negotiated. the wage was the wage. so if the option is either no job or $3.50, a needy individual will choose $3.50. then companies play copycat
And you could of course, you could mow the front lawn of a neighbour. People would probably be more willing to hire young people to odd jobs like that. You can also negotiate with local businesses.
And still, even without negotiations, large companies get a sense of the price they should pay for labour, by monitoring how many low-skilled workers they have, and how many they need.
@Scoforever im not talking about mowing lawns and odd jobs. there was no negotiating the wage for actual entry level jobs. again, the wage was what it was!
large companies and especially corporations are about profit. they will pay there workers as little as they can.
@Scoforever now youre saying you KNOW what they will do without minimum wage? who are you to say that?
and yes i said as little as they can. an individual will only not take the job or leave if they know there is another job or more money to be made somewhere else. now youre assuming that there is another job available.and that pay is better. i have plenty of proof that big business takes advantage of desperate people. china, india, mexico, you pick! this is fact (me) vs. speculation(you)
An employee must generate a profit to the company to justify paying any given wage. Employers rountinely lose money on new employees until they learn a job. Allowing an employer to hire at less than minimum wage would allow new workers to develop a skill that would lead to better employment and higher wages. Even assuming that the employer would not then pay them more, they would then have a marketable skill and could seek work elsewhere.
The minimum wage is whatever YOU say it is. If you dont want to work for $8 per hour then dont take the job. If everyone refused to work for that companies would have to raise wages.
But people just accept any job offer they get and never demand raises because they are in fear of losing their crappy job. Immigrants are the worst for this.
I havent worked for almost a year and turned down about 10 job offers because I wont work for what they offer.
@deficithawker When is the wages of an individual commerce?. Commerce is business transactions between buyers and sellers. The word regulates can also mean to make regular and not necessarily that Congress can control how you do business. Hong Kong had no minimum wage law and the people there have prospered beyond belief. Calling someone a dunce in a conversation is what we call an ad hominem attack that indicates a weak argument.
john stossel is clearly a man that has never worked a minimum wage job. minimum wage isnt even close enough to being worth it. it doesnt help the poor, all it does is ensure that corporations use federal currency.
@deficithawker You asked: "Where is his video complaining about tax expenditures which allow GE to pay zero taxes?", Watch "pt 3 John Stossel Freeloaders 3- 25- 11" on youtube
It's possible to set minimum wage in a way that doesn't compromise market freedom and provide basic human conditions to the worker. Right wingers make it seem that there's no option between lack of labor rights and rampant unemployment.
What about the people who are made unemployed by the minimum wage? Are they rich? Will they benefit in the long run because they don't have experience in work?
@Scoforever Do you really think that corps will hire more workers if minimum wage is droped?
Not in today's business climate, in the capitalism market of America, they are out to make every penny possible using the workers they have and providing pretty much minimum wage and that is it.
Do you really think they will offer benefits and other perks if minimum wage is repealed?, I think not.
Take a virtual tour of some of China's workplaces or sweat shops and see how they treat their workers.
If the minimum wage does not cause unemployment, why not raise it to $150 an hour?
"in the capitalism market of America"
I want to make this very clear, America is not capitalist. Money is half of all economic transactions and is controlled by the Federal Reserve which has a monopoly on money. In addition to that, government spending is responsible for about 36% of GDP.
So we should invite government more into our lives to tell us how we should run our business? If someone voluntarily works for a company at a price they think is fair... what right does the government have to come in and tell the business to force a higher price to the employee? Do you want to own a business that has the government restricting your profits?
I don't agree with the minimum wage, but I agree with your post. One more reason why people shouldn't depend on a job or anyone else for a source of income, except, make their own income (self-employement). Corporations are bastards looking for an easy way to make and save money, that's the truth. And surely gutting off minimum wage will surely not create more jobs, except, employers will save more money and not give anyone a raise.
some businesses can't give their hardest workers a raise because they need a certain number of people to work at the business and that forcing a minimum wage on everyone restricts the amount of money given to harder workers, there are also fewer jobs because of minimum wage. A low paying job is better than no job.
@nwparsons I used to work at Avis/Budget delivering rental cars and I got paid about .50 over minimum wage. My boss explained that All Cendant does is calculate how much money they can pay an employee without the employee going to get better pay at a different job. Companies compete for employees. If the pay is too low then they will go someplace else that won't pay too low. I ask him what would happen if the raised the minimum wage to about $12/hr. He said he would have to hire fewer drivers.
@nwparsons wake up bro. corporation are in it for themselves. everyone is trying to make a dollar. if one man can do it better than another he will. without chains and shackles everyone will race to the top. there were no taxes when we became the greatest nation on the planet. when everybody is busy creating real goods and we forget about this consumption based society, companies will have to compete for jobs. this brings the wage up. only Americans can do this.governments cannot.
@nwparsons "Minimum Wage is there to protect workers and keep them, mainly service industry earning a wage they can survive on"
Jobs that pay minimum wage are NOT there to make a living on. They're jobs for teenagers who want to make a little extra money after school or for an old timer who wants to make himself useful and make a little something too.
I had a paper route when I was a kid and was very happy I had that opportunity. Today kids don't have that opportunity, thanks to govenment!
@nwparsons - I'm old enough to remember when farm workers weren't subject to min. wage. Many were incapable of holding any other kind of job. When min. wage laws changed, these workers were fired, because their labor did not produce enough to justify their job. Farming became more automated, and many of these workers ended up on welfare.
"Corporations and the free market are out for one thing, make as much money as possible while spending the least".
So what? Everyone does that. It's not evil. It's economics. When people shop they try to get the best product for the least money, right?
I live in Montreal where the min. wage is $9.65/h. That's great for people who have those jobs but I'm making $0.00/h because stores are saturated with applications. If I got an offer for $4.00/h I would take it:
Vast amounts of data suggest min wage workers are young, don't have dependents, and come from middle class households.
If I was a parent, and my 16 year old son came home and said the farmer a few miles away offered him a job at $5.75 / hr, and all three parties (farmer, son, me) found it to be okay, what right does the government have to say "No, that's against the law."
Also, if min wage laws don't cause unemployment, why was it so much harder to find work in HS at $7.25 / hr than now?
I think the best thing to do is bring back slavery. If employers don't have to pay anything at all for labor I guarantee our unemployment will drop to zero in a matter of weeks.
Complete straw man. It infringes on peoples' rights - which Stossel is against because he is a libertarian - and is very inefficient. Even if it didn't result in an improved economy - which it wouldn't - it would be unjustified.
Protectionism worked in the U.S for 200 years. It would have continued to work if globalization and neo-liberalim had not been introduced in the 1960s. Tariffs worked in our past, our government knew americans could not compete with cheap third world labor. When NAFTA and MFN for China was made perminant , we have heard that giant sucking sound Ross Perot talked about. What stupid sheeple the american people are, we should march on washington and relieve the plutocrats of their positions.
@questionauthoritah Exactly. Which, by the way is less than 5% of the workforce. It would also add another layer to the workforce of unskilled and young workers that need jobs.
Mr Stossel has one of the world's shortest memories. If he thinks that minimum wage is too high then why isn't he complaining or rarely complains about politicians and CEOs getting raises that far exceed inflation.
If I make an agreement with somebody for him or her to clean my house and in that agreement it is specified that the wages are below what you consider to be acceptable then what do you think should be done to me?
@Scoforever Scoforever is exactly right. Government needs to butt out. Adults should be able to make contracts with each other without the governments meddling.
To say that economic theory is scientific, is to say that political theory is based on science. Only the very young would believe that, and all other believes would be considered ignorant. One would be hard pressed to find two economist who agree. Science can be proven, it is not fantasy, based on political ideology.
Um, people should work for the most money they can get, but if that level is below the minimum wage, should they not work? Not take a job that will allow them to get their foot in the door to eventually earn more. Who does that help?
But if the minimum wage is so great, why not raise it. If it's good at $7.25, wouldn't it be better at $15, or $20.
If you can't afford to pay a decent wage, then you really can't afford to be in business.
The arguments against a living wage are always made by people who make plenty. Let any one of them try and exist on the federal minimum, and they will soon be singing a different tune.
Define "decent". If your argument were sound, then a $10,000 minimum wage would be just fine, but the simple fact is that ANY minimum wage set above the market level results in reduced employment (either job loss or hours curtailment). Nor is it necessary for opponents of the minimum wage to "exist" on the federal minimum. Nearly no one does. Only a small percentage makes the minimum wage at all and most are either young people and/or secondary income earners.
Of course, a starving man will do anything for a crust of bread. John Stossel has no problem with anybody else working for peanuts, of course, anybody but himself. What a selfish, pompous jerk he is. Maybe we should get someone cheaper to do his job, wouldn't take any skill.
@707hoser - If somebody is willing to work for peanuts to get there foot in the door, who is the government to stop them? You talk of pompous, but you want to tell employers how to run their businesses, while you ignore the fact that they will do just that. The minimum wage doesn't give nearly as many raises as it does kill opportunities, hurt business, and prop up the system that keeps people dependent on the government. This cycle does nothing for the poor, just makes Democrats feel good.
@mpc91 You should stop listening to Stossel and his Libertarian cronies. Look at the facts: the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, if we wanted people to even have the same purchasing power as in 1968 it should be over $10 per hour. It is a fact that states with higher minimum wages do better than states with lower minimum wages. We do tell people how to run their businesses, ever hear of safety, health, environmental laws, etc?
@707hoser - Yes, the people who make minimum wage do better than if they were making less, but what about about the guy who can't get a job because his employer could afford $6/hr, but not $7.25? He's not doing better, but we are paying him, so we're not doing better either, but the leftist get to claim they are helping people, and keep their corrupt bargain in operation. Unemployment is rampant; your way isn't working. Maybe you should start listening to Stossel, and stop listening to NPR/MSNBC
@mpc91 Never listen to NPR/MSNBC, but nice try. By your (and Stossel's) logic, when unemployment is high, people should work for anything. $6/hr, $5/hr., do I hear $2/hr.? I prefer to listen to real economists and Stossel isn't an economist. The fact is: states with a higher minimum wage have a better rate of economic growth. We tried ''trickle-down'' economics with Greenspan and look where it got us. We need to get money into the hands of people who will spend it.
Yes, wages being allowed to fall is a cure for unemployment. In fact, history shows how bolstering wages under Hoover and FDR caused unemployment to skyrocket. Stossel's position is entirely consistent with both economic theory and actual history (unlike the assertion that states with higher minimum wages had better economic growth which is nonsense). The EPI claim was that over a very limited period, those states had higher JOB growth - long term even that assertion is pure drivel.
@FletchforFreedom People like yourself and Stossel are always talking about falling wages being ''good'' or a ''cure for unemployment''. You never talk about the attack on the middle class and poor by Greenspan and Reagan starting in 1981. Wages have stagnated since then while the top 5% of earners pay 28% tax rather than 70%. The wealth of the same top 5% has gone from $5 trillion to approx. $40 trillion.
We never talk about the "attack on the middle class" for the same reason we don't discuss the military movements of the orcs of Mordor. The middle class has continued to grow and the myth of the "stagnating middle class" has been long discredited. Not only must you cherry pick peaks and valleys to show a real wage decline, the fact is that total real compensation - what people ACTUALLY earn - has show consistent and substantial growth. The middle class (pre-recession) reached new heights.
@FletchforFreedom No attack on middle class you say. In 1976 the top 1% earned 9% of the country's income, now they earn 24%. You say total real compensation has grown, yes it has, the top 1% of earners took 80% of that increase in wealth from 1980 to 2005. The average CEO earned 42x the average worker in 1976, now that figure is 531x what the average worker earns. You and Stossel say the problem is the minimum wage, you must be kidding me!
Yes, no attack on the middle class. In fact, early assertions about shrinkage of the middle class overlooked that the move was UPWARD not downward. All you are arguing is envy - what the wealthiest or CEOs earn is irrelevant to the relative increase in prosperity across the board. Complaining that someone else makes more is simple whimpering. The 80% argument is factually wrong (and is based on an estimate that doesn't hold - yes I am familiar with the unreproduced "study").
@FletchforFreedom Yes, there is an attack on the lower and middle class. According to IRS figures from 1986 to 2006 income for the bottom 50% of earners has declined by 1% in real terms. Meanwhile, productivity improved by 48% in the US over the same period. The disparity in incomes is relevant to the topic. This all proves that the powerless in the work force need the protection of a minimum wage despite the arguments from right-wingers.
Actually, the IRS figures say nothing of the kind. You are again using analysis by the laughable (and unreliable) EPI. The IRS does not maintain base income figures (they capture AGI (tax related data). They also do not collect data on total incomes or compensation. These figures are gathered by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The standard of living has increased for EVERY income quintile. That you baselessly wish to make this about envy (income disparity) is sad.
That you can't grasp the fact-based argument that the minimum wage is not merely detrimental economically but, instead, harms the very people it is ostensibly designed to help is the problem. Instead, you wish to go off onto tangents (some of which are factually wrong) about disparate income levels as if a) they had anything to do with the topic, b) they were economically harmful in any way or c) they demonstrate harm to workers (whose real median compensation has grown steadily).
@FletchforFreedom There are some people who, in my experience, would have a problem getting hired at any wage rate. Again, I'm not averse to using a two-tier system for younger workers. Obviously, a minimum wage should be set at a reasonable rate. The $7.25/hr. current rate should be at least $10/hr. to keep up with 1968 purchasing power. I'm not advocating that but there should be some floor below which we don't want workers to fall. $7.25/hr. is OK for now.
Your "experience" (contrary to reality as it may be) is irrelevant, Your assessment of a "reasonable" minimum wage rate does not change the fact that, at any rate, it is economically harmful and doesn't help the poor. Thus, for obvious reasons, the only "reasonable" minimum wage is zero. The market wage, being much higher than that would never allow wages to fall lvery low (as history demonstrates). Purchasing power of some earlier wrong-headed level is just meaningless.
@FletchforFreedom The purchasing power of the minimum wage set in 1968 is only wrong-headed in your Libertarian world. It is ridiculous to say that the only ''reasonable'' minimum is zero. There are approx. 500,000 people working on minimum. Thank goodness you silly Libertarian anarchists will never get into power. If you want to learn more about this look up Ravi Batra, a real economist, unlike Stossel.
The point is that ANY minimum wage is demonstrably wrong-headed because it provides NO societal benefit and, in fact, HARMS the very people it is ostensibly designed to protect. Its as if you were debating whether or not we should o back to the 1968 standard for arsenic in drinking water. You mean a full half a million people (out of 154 MILLION job holders), mostly young people and secondary income earners make the minimum?!?!? - less than 1/2 of 1%?!?! A catastrophe!!!
@FletchforFreedom The minimum wage is not wrong-headed and is a benefit because it provides the low wage earner with at least the means to provide for themselves. Would you prefer they go on welfare? If the minimum wage is so unimportant in our economy why are you Libertarian idealogues so much against it? It seems funny to me that you can have minimum standards for environmental and health reasons but not for the most important reason: the well-being of the weakest in our economy.
The minimum wage has never accompished what you suggest. Instead it has always put more low wage workers out of work or resulted in a reduction in their hours. It has never prevented people from going on welfare. And economists - nearly all of them - oppose the minimum wage because it is well-established that it harms the economy, workers and the poor. The well-being of the weakest in our economy is precisely why the minimum wage must be opposed.
And picking one of the four or five economists who agrees with your position as opposed to the overwhelming majority of "real" economists who base their findings on sound theory and research only serves to demonstrate how desperate you are to defend an indefensible position.
The overwhelming majority of real economists including virtually every economist who stuidies the issue, huge majorities in every survey of economists including the membership of the American Economic Association. That the minimum wage does nothing but harm is a concept as close to universal acceptance among economists as any other.
@FletchforFreedom I've seen studies by so-called economists who believe that an ''increase'' in the minimum wage hurts the poor, usually from right-wing think tanks. I prefer to believe an independent economist. Where is a study that shows that the very ''existence'' of the minimum wage hurts low income earners? To answer one of Stossel's objections: workers under 20 can get a lower minimum of $4.25/hr. for 90 days. Of course, in your fantasy world, people can work for nothing.
The overwhelming majority of studies on the minimum wage have been performed by independent economists. Not one single study that has survived scrutiny has found anything other than that the minimum wage hurts the poor. Search "50 years of reserach on the minimum wage", search Newmark & Wascher, or Burkhauser - the research is overwhelmingly independent (unlike that performed by the Economic Policy Institute which is wholly owned by organized labor and has been repeatedly discredited.
@FletchforFreedom Card, Krueger and Katz wrote a rebuttal to Newmark & Wascher so the debate on the minimum wage is far from settled. The main negative effect of the minimum wage is on younger workers and is dependent on the level it is set at. That is largely eliminated with the subminimum wage offered to that group of workers. You don't believe Krugman, Batra or any of the EPI studies. Fair enough, I realize that your ideology is totally opposed to a minimum wage. I happen to disagree.
And, again, Neumark, Wascher, Block, Bernard, Vedder, Gallaway and several other noted economists literally obliterated that "rebuttal". The issue IS settled; your desire to believe otherwise and willingness to cherry-pick sources (without even knowing their subsequent treatment) serves you ill. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence far outweighs the fringe sources you select.
@FletchforFreedom I hardly think that Paul Krugman and Ravi Batra are ''fringe'' sources. They are both well-known and respected economists. You can defame Krugman if you like but he is far better known than any of the economists you mention. The issue is settled only in your imagination. I'll believe Krugman and Batra, not Stossel.
They are fringe sources because their views represent only a tiny minority fo economists. Both are well-known because of their publishing but respected is another issue entirely (and not the case). Krugman is NOT far better known than the economists I have mentioned that conclude that the minimum wage is harmful, Stigler is recognized as the authority on the subject, Clark was the dean of American economics, Hayek among the most widely read. Stossel is simply repeating established economics.
You keep repeating that you won't believe Stossel as if that helps your case rather than demonstrating its weakness. The FACT is that there is a vast and overwhelming body of economic evidence accepted almost unanimously in the economics profession and consistent with the only viable theories on the matter in economics that the minimum wage is nothing but economically harmful. Stossel and I are simply relying on that FACT and selecting only the tiny fringe that disagrees is just silly.
Yes, it IS true that "the main negative effect of the minimum wage is on younger workers and is dependent on the level it is set at" - got one at last. No, the issue is NOT largely eliminated by a subminimum. That is just another bald erroneous assertion added to the list.
@FletchforFreedom So, if you got a zero minimum wage, what do think would happen? Would that enormous damage done to the economy (according to you) be undone and unemployment eased? Magically businesses would start investing and all our problems be solved? Tell me how all this would play out in your wonderful Libertarian paradise? The minimum wage must be a terrible drag on the economy if what you say is true. What do you think?
The economy would allocate labor resources in the most efficient manner. The supply of jobs would increase and not just at lower wage rates because compensation investment would be reallocated. Workers would make market wages (many would be unaffected, others would make amounts maybe a bit lwer than the former minimum but not much lower. Economic efficiencies would increase creating still more jobs and prosperity. It needn't be spectacular but it would all be positive and material. Simple.
@FletchforFreedom Fletch would that labor allocation cover the 4 billion asians brought into competition with western workers, or would it just magicly leave them out.
@FletchforFreedom Your naivete is breathtaking. Businesses are not going to hire more just because of no minimum wage. That is a minor consideration compared to taxes, safety and environmental regulations, customer base . Businesses look at the ''total business environment'' before investing. I think businesses do better with a minimum wage as it reduces turnover of staff, actually saving them money. Saving a dollar or two per hour is trivial. Look somewhere else to save the economy.
It's not my fault that comprehension of economics and how the world works utterly contradicts your preconceived worldview. The total business environment is what the minimum wage distorts and every single, solitary job in the entire economy is created for one reason and one reason alone. Businesses make the determination that the cost of hiring that next person is less than the return that the business can earn with that additional worker. That businesses will hire more is a certainlty.
My worldview is one that has a minimum wage in it, too. That isn't the issue. It's just a recognition of reality. The problem is that your worldview is one in which there is no economic consensus that the minimum wage is always economically detrimental and, as such, never justified. That is a denial of reality. If you wish to deny reality, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean that you can state such foolish beliefs to others and expect them to agree with such idiocy.
@FletchforFreedom You can state sources and studies to back up your claim that the minimum wage hurts the people it is supposed to help. Your position is theoretical, driven by a Libertarian ideology and unprovable unless the minimum wage is abolished. You believe it because certain economists have said it is so. I don't put too much faith in economists as they are wrong a lot of the time. But if you want to believe all that you are told and it suits your view of the world, good for you.
Are you a second ID for louietheloser??? Usually he's the one putting out the argument (that proves the one making it has an IQ comparable to gravel) that all of the studies WHICH ARE EMPIRICAL EXAMINATIONS OF REALITY or mere theory and could only be proved if the minimum wgae were abolished. In reality, of course, the studies of the real world impact of hikes and lowerings odf the minimum wage demonstrate the FACT of its harm and are not theoretical at all.
@FletchforFreedom All your arguments are the standard ones we always hear from Libertarians: the minimum wage is hurting small business and the poor. Small businesses usually treat their employees well and pay them above minimum wage. Libertarians pretend to care about small business and the poor. In fact, Libertarians only care about Capital and the freedom of Capital to maximize the return on its investment. They want the freedom to pay their employees as little as possible.
I made no mention of small business (its business in general). the reaon that these arguments are "standard" is because they are logically, historically and factually correct - regardless of whether they are presented by a libertarian or not. The rest of your response is nothing but a puerile ad hominem attack that demonstrates you have nothing left of value to contribute.
@FletchforFreedom No, they are your slanted view of ''studies'' which are far from scientific. The fact is that nobody should have to work 40 hours a week for less than poverty wages. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your views, but, oh well.
Like I said. You never read them; you have no legitimate arguments to present so you simply dismiss them as "far from scientific" (which only demonstrates how disconnected for reality you are and how low you'll stoop to make an entirely specious point). Then you present your personal feelings as argument when anybody should be given the opportunity to work at whatever wages they can get. All you would do is tell those willing to work for less is that they aren't allowed to work at all.
@FletchforFreedom Sounds familier you know it all, and no one else knows anything. Who would bother to talk to you, all you know is DOL stats, and government, and corporate sponsered talking points. You have been discredited by all you debate. Do you actually believe you ever win a debate.
@FletchforFreedom Well, if you think economic studies are pure science, I have to disagree. That's not to dismiss the credentials of the economists doing the study, its just in the nature of the beast. As to your last sentence, there lies the crux of the argument.
Yes, economic studies are pure science, that IS the nature of the beast. That you disagree - well, you can disagree that the earth revolves around the sun or that human lungs process oxygen or that hydrogen is flammable ... and you get the same results.
And yes, the last sentence is the crux of the argumnet. I am willing to let people work to better themselves if they so choose without the government from preventing them from doing so - you aren;t willing to give them that freedom.
@FletchforFreedom Folks need a level paying field, you do not support that, you support the government, corporate collusion, of globalization, that we have today. That is not freedom. Americans labor competing with Asia labor is not a level playing field. It only drives american wages down, and does not change the Asian laborers lot in life, there is to many of them to ever have wage inflation. You know that, but you are anti labor, and support a two class system.
@FletchforFreedom I got a laugh from your analogies. They show a good imagination, completely idiotic of course, but very funny. I doubt whether you could find a scientist on earth who would argue with those concepts. On the other hand, you could find many different opinions amongst economists regarding monetary policy, as an example. You are willing to let people ''beggar'' themselves. In a civilized society we all have certain standards for working conditions, well, maybe you don't.
Laughter in ignorance is hardly surprising. Of course, had you a grasp of the issues under discussion you would see we are not talking about theoretical models (an error that has already been pointed out to you) but observable phenomena recorded with (entirely) scientific methods. And the historical fact is that working conditions and wages have both steadily increased in the absence of such interventions all the way back to the Industrial Revolution. You are inadvertantly calling for beggary
@FletchforFreedom Well, I know you like research based on observable phenomena using scientific methods (your words). Why don't you check out a new study from UC Berkeley ''Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders'' by Dube, Lester and Reich. On second thought, maybe you'd better give it a miss as it doesn't agree with your worldview. It can be a shock to realize that you are not right all the time.
Best keep reading. The study to which you refer (which is not "new" but from 2007) found little or no "disemployment" large negative effects in examining cross state minimum wage effects. Their assertion that state vs. national examinations are superior have been roundly criticized, but, beyond that, the subsequent research of the SAME THREE ECONOMISTS found "large negative effects" from the minimim wage even when there was little direct disemployment. Oops.
@FletchforFreedom Actually, the study has been revised and re-released this year. They say that they have corrected problems with the previous study. I am still reading but haven't found the ''large negative effects'' of the minimum wage you mention. Not yet anyway.
And that study is following the same pattern as the previous 3%-4% of minimum wage studies (yes the percentage is that small) that argue the absence of negative effects, just as with Card & Krueger: 1) the initial study is published, 2) it's latched onto by MW advocates; 3) the study is subjected to scrutiny and found to have (glaring) problems, 4) it is reissued conceding some errors but not capitualting, 5) further scrutiny finds the reissue wanting and we move on. We're at step 4.
@FletchforFreedom Hey , would that be in the real world or the abstract world, that fletch lives in. Have you memorized these studies, in the same manner that you do the DOL stats. Little wonder intelligent reasoning escapes you.
Ceratinly economists are often wrong - you have chosen a few to believe. And from that perspective, ignoring Batri and Krugman who have NOT performed actual studies and are ONLY presenting theories as opposed to the economists I have named (Stigler, Vedder, Blcok) who have performed actual REAL WORLD studies is entirely appropriate. I believe the facts demonstrated in the real world - that the minimum wage is harmful has been so proved. You wish to believe only theorists with your OPINION.
@FletchforFreedom Well, certainly I agree with Krugman and Batra (among others) and I've read the ''real world'' studies you talk about. The results of these studies suggest a link between minimum wages set too high or increasing at too rapid a pace, and a rise in unemployment. You have taken these studies and jumped to the conclusion that any minimum wage at any level is bad for the economy. That is a conclusion that is not based on reality.
Clearly you have NOT read the real world studies because if you had I would have to conclude that you are lying you ass off about their content. The overwhelming body of research demonstrates the harmful impact of ANY minimum wage set above the market wage. I'll grant you that a minimum wage set at 19 cents an hour would not be economically harmful but then no one ever suggests a minimum wage below a level the market sets - then it wouldn't be harmful, just irrelevant.
In the narrowest sense that is true - but essentially every one of them asserts (because that's what the data indicates) that any minimum wage SET ABOVE THE MARKET WAGE is invariably harmful. Any minimum wage rate set below that which employers and workers are already willing to accept is irrelevant and has no impact; any minimum wage set above that level, again according to all the real world evidence - including in Crad & Krueger's sample set - is harmful.
@FletchforFreedom You know, I think I agree with you and the studies you mention: the minimum wage is harmful if it is set above the ''market value'' of labor and useless if it is set below that level. I happen to believe that it is below the ''market value'' right now. There you are, we both win. Well, not really, as I would like to see it higher. Still, its not a perfect world is it?
I didn;t say "market value" but the consept is the same. by definition, the "market value" is the wage as determined in the marjetplace. It is definitionally impossible for wages actually being paid to be "below the market value. YOUR concept of market value is entirely meaningless - only the value determined by the interaction of worker and emplyer has any market meaning. If the minimum wage were set below the "market value" virtually no one would make precisely that.
@FletchforFreedom Hey I need to ask, are these real economist, are they the ones that teaches economic theory, or do you have some that live in the real world?
@FletchforFreedom What you don't mention is that most economists believe that the minimum wage has a minimal effect on the economy, either good or bad. But I think that this argument is not about economics for you, it is pure ideology which makes you (and Stossel) reject the minimum wage, at any level. In your Libertarian view of the world, any government interference with the free market is an act of violence against individual freedom. Is that about right?
Actually, I don't mention that most economists believe that the minimum wage has a minimal effect on the economy because the position is absurd on its face. Again, surveys of economists show that the overwhelming majority agree that it is harmful AND significantly so. Search for polls on the subject. My ideology might be relevant if it weren't for the fact that my responses have been entirely those of economic science and demonstrated research as opposed to your bald (inaccurate) assertions.
@FletchforFreedom Well, now you've contradicted yourself. First you say that because only 500,000 wage earners are on minimum wage it shows that the minimum wage is unnecessary. Then you assert that it is significantly harmful to the economy. Make up your mind, which is it?
That as few as 500,000 people earning the legal minimum is not an economic catastrophe is true (particularly since virtually none of them are trying to "raise a family" at that level). That assessment has nothing to do with the fact that the minimum wgae - even at the current level is significantly harful to the economy because it destroys jobs and channels resources to inefficient investments (due to the distortion) that is harful to the economy as a whole. No contradiction exists.
@FletchforFreedom Well, with ''only'' 500,000 people on minimum wage, obviously it is not having a significant negative effect on the economy. Please explain how it is ''destroying jobs'' and causing ''distortion in the economy'' and ''channeling resources to inefficient investments''. It is a huge contradiction.
I am not responsible for your inability to grasp a logical position. Any price floor, whether it be for materials (see protectionist tariffs) or labor (the minimum wage) alters the market decision making process from the most efficient allocation of resources (which is the source of maximum jobs and prosperity) to a less efficient allocation that incorporates the price floor. This is both very harful and significant even if the market price resulted in only 100,000 minimum wage workers.
@FletchforFreedom This is a really stupid argument. Our economy is full of price-fixing and monopolistic practices. There is a price floor on all kinds of materials, goods and services. No business is going to sell their product at below their production cost. Why should people sell their labor at a rate that is below their subsistence level? You are still greatly exaggerating the effect of the minimum wage. But I suppose that suits your beliefs
No need to describe in advance (though you should have put a colon after "stupid argument. No the economy is demonstrably NOT full of price-fixing and monopolistic practices by any stretch of the imagination. And a price floor is an artifical restraint on prices; production costs result in a shift to the supply curve which is something entirely different. People should sell their labor for as much as they can get - almost invariably above subsistence level in a competitive market.
Having demonstrsated your complete lack of a grasp of economics (and even what a price floor is) and a complete disconnect from reality (the prevalence of price-fixing and monopoly, it is hardly surprising that you continue to argue (despite the realities glaring you in the face) that I am exaggerating anything. After all you keep trying to exaggerate the views of a tiny minority to argue that their microscopic dissent alters the fact that the harmful effects of the minimum wage are established
In fact, even the EPI (who tends to cherry pick "labor economists" from its own ranks and those of sister organizations in its polling - as I said, its reliability has been shredded), which actively supports increasing the minimum wage cannot escape the facts. In a 2007 survey of labor economists, nearly 3/4 (73%) concede that an increase in the minimum wage would result in job losses and reduced entry-level hiring; two thirds (68%) agreed it would not fight poverty. The issue is settled.
@FletchforFreedom Leaving aside EPI and Stossel, who are both biased, why don't you read Paul Krugman's position on the subject as well as that of Ravi Batra. They believe that with the current weakness of unions minimum wage laws are necessary. If, as you believe, an increase in minimum wage is harmful, then you must believe a decrease would be beneficial. These economists would completely disagree with you. They probably know more about the subject than Stossel or yourself.
In other words, I should ignore John Bates Clark, Gary Becker, George Stigler, F.A. Hayek, and all of the most respected economists in history and rely instead on two economists not taken seriously by the economic profession as a whole (we are still waiting for Krugman's "tidal wave" of inflation following the first Reagan tax cuts). Even Krugman doesn't argue that raising minimum wages isn't harmful; he argues against cutting them. Why would I make such an irrational choice?
Before it comes up, let me point out that I described Paul Krugman as not being taken seriously by members of the economics profession - which is actually an understatement. This has no bearing on the opinions of the fawning readers of his columsn in the New York Times or the same group of Noregians who felt it appropriate to honor Barark Obama, Yasser Arafat and the Intergovernmnetal Panel on Climate Change with the peace prize.
@FletchforFreedom In your openion is it in the poors interest for Asia to offer up its poor laboring class to multinational corporations as cheap labor. Wouldn't you say that creates an impossible situation for American labor, as long as we allow these products manufactured by .20/hr. labor, to be sold in the US duty free.
Since you've been so thorouly proved to be a liar and no one takes you seriously on Youtube (having made the Youtube nutball top ten that's making the rounds) and still repeating the .20/hr lie, its clear that you are oblivious to the total embarrassment you are.
Further, not only is your assertion about states "doing better" objectively false, the work of Card & Krueger (trumpeted by EPI has been thoroughly discarded). You should stop listening to the Economic (sic) Policy Institute whose pronouncements have been repeatedly debunked such as the claim during the Kerry campaign that insourced jobs paid $9,000 less than outsourced jobs. Snopes had a field day with that EPI idiocy, not to mention the BLS whose data the EPI distorted.
@FletchforFreedom You say that Card & Krueger have been debunked, by whom? In any case, that doesn't invalidate the need for a minimum wage law. If the minimum wage was to keep up the same purchasing power as it had in 1968 it would have to be just over $10/hr. I would be in favor of a two-tier minimum wage, starting lower for young workers. That seems to work in jurisdictions that have tried it.
By literally EVERYONE. Not only do 50 years of detailed research confirm the impact of the minimum wage, specific studies by a Fed economist, Neumark & Wascher, Walter Block, Burkhauser, et al, Richard Vedder and even the Employment Policies Institute (which while provately funded has never been discredited as the union-funded Economic Policy Institute has) have torn the Card & Krueger studies to shreds.
That the "need" for a minimum wage law has been invalidated stems from the demonstrated conclusion that its ONLY effect is to reduce employment (particularly among low skilled minority workers). It has been demonstrated to be an utter failure at diminishing poverty and is unnecessary to ensure that employers pay higher wage levels. That the minimum wage is lower in real terms than in the past is completely irrelevant to the issue - that the minimum wage does nothing but harm. Period.
I suppose Stossel would have no problem with "Juden Raus!" signs posted all over hotels, stores, cafes or airports the way they were under the Nazis.... What a sad fuck!
@FranklyMisterShankly - if they were mandated by the government, he'd have a huge issue with them. If they were put up by the business owner, then he'd hate them, and not stay at that hotel, eat at that cafe.
The Nazi's were about all about government mandates and were as anti-libertarian as one could imagine. That you don't get that makes me feel sad for you, because you'll feel great about legislating away your liberty.
@mpc91 In that case, you should move to Somalia, where there is no government at all to "legislate liberty," where everyone is a gun owner, where you'll never have to fill out a tax form and where the strongest rule by brute force. Good luck in your new libertarian utopia!
This video is about the minimum wage. You talked about businesses putting up racist posters. Now you are talking about Somalia. You can't stick to debating one issue. If one point is refuted then you just go onto your next claim rather than admitting that you were wrong.
Debating is not about being correct. It is about convincing people that you are correct. I have no doubt that you are good at that but the way that you do it is very dishonest.
@Scoforever Fair enough, let me make my argument pertinent to the minimum wage. Move to Somalia, that great libertarian paradise, where they have no government to set the minimum wage, control working conditions or even legislate on the "liberty" of employing child labor.
Wait a second. Are you arguing for the social contract? Do you realise that that would justify every government action in which people where allowed to leave the country? That would mean that until the summer of 1941 Hitler's actions against the Jews were justified because they were allowed to leave until then.
Also I could go up to somebody's house, put a gun to their head and ,"say do not work for this wage or I will use this gun against you. However you are perfectly free to move to another house where someone else will do the exact same thing to you". Would that really be justified?
Also Somalia is not libertarian. Libertarians are against government because it uses violence. If a private individual or group of individuals that don't claim to be a government use violence then they are still violating libertarian principles.
Anyway Somalia is governed by the Transitional Federal Government. In 2009 they implemented Sharia Law.
@FranklyMisterShankly - So you really don't understand what libertarian means, do you. There is a difference between limited government protecting the rights of the people, and anarchy. It's not complicated. A limited government is needed to protect property rights, and ensure that trades in the free market are voluntary. That is hardly the case in Somalia. That you think Somalia is libertarian just puts a big spotlight on how little you know about what it means to be a libertarian.
Which is worse? Setting wages at eight bucks an hour and risking unemployment or having full employment with wages at three bucks a week. I'd stick with the minimum wage. Thank you.
That is because you fail to connect how labor costs in the form of employee wages effects pricing on goods and services. Businesses will simply pass that cost onto workers by downsizing their labor force and/or pass it on to consumers by raising prices on their products and services which will effectively wipe out the wage increase.
The government instilled "minimum wage" because private companies weren't paying livable wages. Supply and demand is not something that makes a company look at a workers' wage; unless it's the senator whom has the power to vote on such legislation that is being paid for. The minimum wage increases at a slower rate than inflation because of libertarian jackasses like John Stossel who don't want anybody to do anything and just see how things pan out. Twas the case once here, and it sucked.
oh yeah because now the minimum wages are so livable now. and how high do minimum wages have to go? huh. you do realize the higher the wages the less there would be in that company. fewer workers because they pay so much for there employees. what the government doesnt realize is that with the high minimum wages that we do have companies cant afford it, they will be in the red even sometimes bankruptcy to keep just a small few people on minimum wage salary it isnt far to the companies.
@youtubalisation No. We're not taxed enough (unless you count corporate fees that companies push on you so they don't have to pay their immensely fair share). Nor are we forced into sacrificing our very capabilities for the greater good (it's your right to be a selfish asshole if you so choose). Minimum wage is still unfair, so, the poor will stay poor. Even without communist policy. Yay free market! Doin' the job better than the Soviets ever imagined!
haha we are no where near communism, have you even been to a communist country? we are FAR from it dude trust me. nothing to fear man. what we are becoming is a bunch of people buckling our knees to Washington and not standing up for what is right, and whats constitutional.
...the federal government had a sound monetary policy, this wouldn't be a major issue to worry about. The federal government makes life worse for low wage workers by borrowing HUGE amounts of money and then taxing us to pay it back. They print more money and their economic "stimulus" creates an inflation tax on our salaries & perpetuating the poverty. Of course this works out great if you're the LENDER!
I understand his point as far as small businesses w/o a lot of money to spend, but some of these major corporations are getting a bargain w/ minimum wage. There are some Americans who are not skilled or educated & don't have plans for a career. So they depend on a service/factory job to SURVIVE. It is extremely hard to survive in America on a full time minimum wage salary. And landlords despise people who make low wages. They won't let you rent an apartment even if you can afford it. If the...
ok what about this, we dont give minimum wages to the smaller corporations and small businesses we give them a choice and an option to what they can pay there employees and those companies that do bring home more then or close to 100 billion dollars in revenue get the maximum minimum wages enforced on them. im a libertarian bro but i do understand where people come from that companies do take advantage of lack of regulations. this way both sides get what they want.
In fact there is a question that should be asked to the statists. Should consumers be forced to go to shops owned by people of another race or ethnicity?
What a bunch of b.s. If businesses had no minimum wage regs. they would simply pay the least possible, just as they do in third world countries. No minimum wage is a great way to grow your poor population, which leads to greater crime.
@sophiemarie49 i hate when people like stossel say some people are not worth minimum wage becausee their skills are not worth that "much" what a sick and horrible thing to say, min wage like u said is there to prevent exploiation and slave wages
What a bunch of b.s. Stossel should try living on minimum wage. It's not really a living wage, you can't survive on it unless you work much more than 40 hours.
His premise that raising the wage keeps owners from creating jobs is wrong. It really is about supply and demand. With so many good paying jobs going overseas, local businesses don't have as many well-paid customers.
A minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. It is simply the bare minimum a person can be compensated for their labor. The fact remains that raising the minimum wage beyond what supply and demand dictates has destroyed low skilled, entry level jobs. Rather than pay janitors or a shopkeepers to maintain the appearance of their store, business owners will now take on that responsibility themselves or designate these responsibilities to another employee.
This is a smart man, look at our economy now and the unemployment rate. How can you increase minimum wage while taxes go up. That does not make any sense. I have to pay people more and then pay the government a shit load of takes, plus be profitable against big corporations? We don't live in a free market we live in fascism.
The mustache is the only reason he seems smart.
gohan40129 4 days ago
This globalist pig must agree with the concept of placing American Labor in direct competition with 4 billion Asian workers, who will work for pennies. The founders provided a protectionist economy that served the country well until globalization became the craze.
louiethegreater 1 week ago
amazing how people dont believe that wage are negotiatable. your wage is the exchage of your time and labor for money/payment. therefore if the pay is too low then you turn it down. thus negotiating.
hmongak 3 weeks ago
If I walk into a store and they can't afford to hire me at $8 with this economy. Then with minimum wage I remain unemployed. But what if I am willing to work for 4 dollars an hour(believe me I would) and that employer can afford that then it's a win-win for both of us. With teenagers they don't have to worry so much on supporting themselves since they still live with their parents. I also seriously doubt that the wage would be $1-2 dollars since people wont work for that little.
skeptictom818 3 months ago 3
bringing back child labor will really bring the money in....
Toadphillips 3 months ago
The real minimum wage is zero. If you don't work at all, you make zero; if you work, you make something; if you work harder, you'll make more... Is that a myth?
jamesmoocn 4 months ago
Labor is your own personal property and if you want to offer that property in exchange for any amount, then you should be able to do this. It is also funny how the minimum wage does get lowered during times of deflation. This always moving upward, but never down causes poor service and experiences at many businesses. Did you think they were going to keep the same number of people when they have a bottom line to meet? get a clue liberals. Minimum wage is used to buy votes for democrats.
truthfromtheword 4 months ago
if there werent any minimum wage, who decides the lowest wage? seriously, the lowest wage might end up being a dorm room apartment on top of the factory and 2 meals a day. slaves had a roof over there head and hot meals too!
YoungTon22 5 months ago
@YoungTon22
"if there werent any minimum wage, who decides the lowest wage"
Erm, market equilibrium.
Scoforever 5 months ago
@Scoforever ok. explain it? as far as from a laborers wages. who decides where the bottom of the graph is? market equilibrium explains wages as supply and demand already exist.
YoungTon22 5 months ago
@YoungTon22
"who decides where the bottom of the graph is?"
People wanting jobs and people wanting to hire, negotiate on a wage. If the person wanting a job feels that the employer is being unreasonable, they go somewhere else. If the employer feels that the employee is being unreasonable, they hire someone else.
Scoforever 5 months ago
@Scoforever this is the problem. "negotiate on wage"? since when did a low wage job negotiate the wage? when i was 18-22 i was had several different low paying jobs and the wage was never negotiated. the wage was the wage. so if the option is either no job or $3.50, a needy individual will choose $3.50. then companies play copycat
YoungTon22 5 months ago
@YoungTon22
And you could of course, you could mow the front lawn of a neighbour. People would probably be more willing to hire young people to odd jobs like that. You can also negotiate with local businesses.
And still, even without negotiations, large companies get a sense of the price they should pay for labour, by monitoring how many low-skilled workers they have, and how many they need.
Scoforever 5 months ago
@Scoforever im not talking about mowing lawns and odd jobs. there was no negotiating the wage for actual entry level jobs. again, the wage was what it was!
large companies and especially corporations are about profit. they will pay there workers as little as they can.
YoungTon22 5 months ago
@YoungTon22
"again, the wage was what it was!"
With the minimum wage existing!
"they will pay there workers as little as they can."
And if they pay them to little, they leave, a message to pay them more.
Scoforever 5 months ago
@Scoforever now youre saying you KNOW what they will do without minimum wage? who are you to say that?
and yes i said as little as they can. an individual will only not take the job or leave if they know there is another job or more money to be made somewhere else. now youre assuming that there is another job available.and that pay is better. i have plenty of proof that big business takes advantage of desperate people. china, india, mexico, you pick! this is fact (me) vs. speculation(you)
YoungTon22 5 months ago
An employee must generate a profit to the company to justify paying any given wage. Employers rountinely lose money on new employees until they learn a job. Allowing an employer to hire at less than minimum wage would allow new workers to develop a skill that would lead to better employment and higher wages. Even assuming that the employer would not then pay them more, they would then have a marketable skill and could seek work elsewhere.
dunwishin4 6 months ago
The minimum wage is whatever YOU say it is. If you dont want to work for $8 per hour then dont take the job. If everyone refused to work for that companies would have to raise wages.
But people just accept any job offer they get and never demand raises because they are in fear of losing their crappy job. Immigrants are the worst for this.
I havent worked for almost a year and turned down about 10 job offers because I wont work for what they offer.
rustyscrapper 6 months ago
@deficithawker When is the wages of an individual commerce?. Commerce is business transactions between buyers and sellers. The word regulates can also mean to make regular and not necessarily that Congress can control how you do business. Hong Kong had no minimum wage law and the people there have prospered beyond belief. Calling someone a dunce in a conversation is what we call an ad hominem attack that indicates a weak argument.
tasuki78 7 months ago
Why not slavery 2.00 dollars an hour why not? Work 8 hours earn 30 bucks or so terrible the real issue is cost of living.
auburn722 7 months ago
john stossel is clearly a man that has never worked a minimum wage job. minimum wage isnt even close enough to being worth it. it doesnt help the poor, all it does is ensure that corporations use federal currency.
SUPERSTUD6000 8 months ago
@deficithawker You asked: "Where is his video complaining about tax expenditures which allow GE to pay zero taxes?", Watch "pt 3 John Stossel Freeloaders 3- 25- 11" on youtube
Schwyndfst 9 months ago
It's possible to set minimum wage in a way that doesn't compromise market freedom and provide basic human conditions to the worker. Right wingers make it seem that there's no option between lack of labor rights and rampant unemployment.
luizcadu 9 months ago
@deficithawker
I'm not sure about that specific example, but try watching Stossel's show about crony capitalism.
Scoforever 9 months ago
Minimum Wage is there to protect workers and keep them, mainly service industry earning a wage they can survive on.
If folks think that dropping that wage will have any benefits, think again.
Corporations and the free market are out for one thing, make as much money as possible while spending the least.
Going back to $4.00/Hr. minimum wage, will just put us right in line with countries like China.
Wake up people, rolling back workers rights and a minimum wage will just benfit the rich.
nwparsons 11 months ago
@nwparsons
What about the people who are made unemployed by the minimum wage? Are they rich? Will they benefit in the long run because they don't have experience in work?
Scoforever 11 months ago
@Scoforever Do you really think that corps will hire more workers if minimum wage is droped?
Not in today's business climate, in the capitalism market of America, they are out to make every penny possible using the workers they have and providing pretty much minimum wage and that is it.
Do you really think they will offer benefits and other perks if minimum wage is repealed?, I think not.
Take a virtual tour of some of China's workplaces or sweat shops and see how they treat their workers.
nwparsons 11 months ago
@nwparsons
If the minimum wage does not cause unemployment, why not raise it to $150 an hour?
"in the capitalism market of America"
I want to make this very clear, America is not capitalist. Money is half of all economic transactions and is controlled by the Federal Reserve which has a monopoly on money. In addition to that, government spending is responsible for about 36% of GDP.
Scoforever 11 months ago 9
@Scoforever
"Do you really think they will offer benefits and other perks if minimum wage is repealed?"
The minimum wage regulates wages, not benefits.
"Take a virtual tour of some of China's workplaces"
China comes 135th in the index of economic freedom.
Scoforever 11 months ago
So we should invite government more into our lives to tell us how we should run our business? If someone voluntarily works for a company at a price they think is fair... what right does the government have to come in and tell the business to force a higher price to the employee? Do you want to own a business that has the government restricting your profits?
Johnhaile88 10 months ago
@nwparsons
I don't agree with the minimum wage, but I agree with your post. One more reason why people shouldn't depend on a job or anyone else for a source of income, except, make their own income (self-employement). Corporations are bastards looking for an easy way to make and save money, that's the truth. And surely gutting off minimum wage will surely not create more jobs, except, employers will save more money and not give anyone a raise.
MidNiteR32 9 months ago
some businesses can't give their hardest workers a raise because they need a certain number of people to work at the business and that forcing a minimum wage on everyone restricts the amount of money given to harder workers, there are also fewer jobs because of minimum wage. A low paying job is better than no job.
Johnhaile88 10 months ago
@nwparsons I used to work at Avis/Budget delivering rental cars and I got paid about .50 over minimum wage. My boss explained that All Cendant does is calculate how much money they can pay an employee without the employee going to get better pay at a different job. Companies compete for employees. If the pay is too low then they will go someplace else that won't pay too low. I ask him what would happen if the raised the minimum wage to about $12/hr. He said he would have to hire fewer drivers.
arch571332 9 months ago
@nwparsons wake up bro. corporation are in it for themselves. everyone is trying to make a dollar. if one man can do it better than another he will. without chains and shackles everyone will race to the top. there were no taxes when we became the greatest nation on the planet. when everybody is busy creating real goods and we forget about this consumption based society, companies will have to compete for jobs. this brings the wage up. only Americans can do this.governments cannot.
jsteel89 8 months ago
@nwparsons "Minimum Wage is there to protect workers and keep them, mainly service industry earning a wage they can survive on"
Jobs that pay minimum wage are NOT there to make a living on. They're jobs for teenagers who want to make a little extra money after school or for an old timer who wants to make himself useful and make a little something too.
I had a paper route when I was a kid and was very happy I had that opportunity. Today kids don't have that opportunity, thanks to govenment!
jjenson2006 6 months ago
@nwparsons - I'm old enough to remember when farm workers weren't subject to min. wage. Many were incapable of holding any other kind of job. When min. wage laws changed, these workers were fired, because their labor did not produce enough to justify their job. Farming became more automated, and many of these workers ended up on welfare.
dunwishin4 6 months ago
@nwparsons
"Corporations and the free market are out for one thing, make as much money as possible while spending the least".
So what? Everyone does that. It's not evil. It's economics. When people shop they try to get the best product for the least money, right?
I live in Montreal where the min. wage is $9.65/h. That's great for people who have those jobs but I'm making $0.00/h because stores are saturated with applications. If I got an offer for $4.00/h I would take it:
$4.00/h > $0.00/h.
MrPitch100 6 months ago
Step 1.) Check the Constitution.
Step 2.) Rescind Minimun Wage laws.
Step 3.) Watch the glorious transformation around you!
Brownyman 11 months ago
Vast amounts of data suggest min wage workers are young, don't have dependents, and come from middle class households.
If I was a parent, and my 16 year old son came home and said the farmer a few miles away offered him a job at $5.75 / hr, and all three parties (farmer, son, me) found it to be okay, what right does the government have to say "No, that's against the law."
Also, if min wage laws don't cause unemployment, why was it so much harder to find work in HS at $7.25 / hr than now?
jrsub3 1 year ago 6
bring back the sweatshops!
KripDrip 1 year ago
JOHN STOSSEL's theme is keep certain people PO
debisis 1 year ago
I think the best thing to do is bring back slavery. If employers don't have to pay anything at all for labor I guarantee our unemployment will drop to zero in a matter of weeks.
cugamer 1 year ago
@cugamer
Complete straw man. It infringes on peoples' rights - which Stossel is against because he is a libertarian - and is very inefficient. Even if it didn't result in an improved economy - which it wouldn't - it would be unjustified.
Scoforever 1 year ago 2
Protectionism worked in the U.S for 200 years. It would have continued to work if globalization and neo-liberalim had not been introduced in the 1960s. Tariffs worked in our past, our government knew americans could not compete with cheap third world labor. When NAFTA and MFN for China was made perminant , we have heard that giant sucking sound Ross Perot talked about. What stupid sheeple the american people are, we should march on washington and relieve the plutocrats of their positions.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
If we get rid of the minimum wage, the only people affected are the ones currently making minimum wage. Anyone making more will not be affected.
questionauthoritah 1 year ago
@questionauthoritah excluding business owners.
questionauthoritah 1 year ago
@questionauthoritah Exactly. Which, by the way is less than 5% of the workforce. It would also add another layer to the workforce of unskilled and young workers that need jobs.
will1977a 1 year ago
Mr Stossel has one of the world's shortest memories. If he thinks that minimum wage is too high then why isn't he complaining or rarely complains about politicians and CEOs getting raises that far exceed inflation.
jackiechan511 1 year ago
@jackiechan511
If I make an agreement with somebody for him or her to clean my house and in that agreement it is specified that the wages are below what you consider to be acceptable then what do you think should be done to me?
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever And what does this have to do with my initial post?
jackiechan511 1 year ago
@jackiechan511
The minimum wage.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever Scoforever is exactly right. Government needs to butt out. Adults should be able to make contracts with each other without the governments meddling.
will1977a 1 year ago
To say that economic theory is scientific, is to say that political theory is based on science. Only the very young would believe that, and all other believes would be considered ignorant. One would be hard pressed to find two economist who agree. Science can be proven, it is not fantasy, based on political ideology.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Um, people should work for the most money they can get, but if that level is below the minimum wage, should they not work? Not take a job that will allow them to get their foot in the door to eventually earn more. Who does that help?
But if the minimum wage is so great, why not raise it. If it's good at $7.25, wouldn't it be better at $15, or $20.
You want a real economist, try Friedman.
mpc91 1 year ago
If you can't afford to pay a decent wage, then you really can't afford to be in business.
The arguments against a living wage are always made by people who make plenty. Let any one of them try and exist on the federal minimum, and they will soon be singing a different tune.
inflate98 1 year ago
Define "decent". If your argument were sound, then a $10,000 minimum wage would be just fine, but the simple fact is that ANY minimum wage set above the market level results in reduced employment (either job loss or hours curtailment). Nor is it necessary for opponents of the minimum wage to "exist" on the federal minimum. Nearly no one does. Only a small percentage makes the minimum wage at all and most are either young people and/or secondary income earners.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Of course, a starving man will do anything for a crust of bread. John Stossel has no problem with anybody else working for peanuts, of course, anybody but himself. What a selfish, pompous jerk he is. Maybe we should get someone cheaper to do his job, wouldn't take any skill.
707hoser 1 year ago
@707hoser - If somebody is willing to work for peanuts to get there foot in the door, who is the government to stop them? You talk of pompous, but you want to tell employers how to run their businesses, while you ignore the fact that they will do just that. The minimum wage doesn't give nearly as many raises as it does kill opportunities, hurt business, and prop up the system that keeps people dependent on the government. This cycle does nothing for the poor, just makes Democrats feel good.
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 You should stop listening to Stossel and his Libertarian cronies. Look at the facts: the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, if we wanted people to even have the same purchasing power as in 1968 it should be over $10 per hour. It is a fact that states with higher minimum wages do better than states with lower minimum wages. We do tell people how to run their businesses, ever hear of safety, health, environmental laws, etc?
707hoser 1 year ago
@707hoser - Yes, the people who make minimum wage do better than if they were making less, but what about about the guy who can't get a job because his employer could afford $6/hr, but not $7.25? He's not doing better, but we are paying him, so we're not doing better either, but the leftist get to claim they are helping people, and keep their corrupt bargain in operation. Unemployment is rampant; your way isn't working. Maybe you should start listening to Stossel, and stop listening to NPR/MSNBC
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 Never listen to NPR/MSNBC, but nice try. By your (and Stossel's) logic, when unemployment is high, people should work for anything. $6/hr, $5/hr., do I hear $2/hr.? I prefer to listen to real economists and Stossel isn't an economist. The fact is: states with a higher minimum wage have a better rate of economic growth. We tried ''trickle-down'' economics with Greenspan and look where it got us. We need to get money into the hands of people who will spend it.
707hoser 1 year ago
Yes, wages being allowed to fall is a cure for unemployment. In fact, history shows how bolstering wages under Hoover and FDR caused unemployment to skyrocket. Stossel's position is entirely consistent with both economic theory and actual history (unlike the assertion that states with higher minimum wages had better economic growth which is nonsense). The EPI claim was that over a very limited period, those states had higher JOB growth - long term even that assertion is pure drivel.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom People like yourself and Stossel are always talking about falling wages being ''good'' or a ''cure for unemployment''. You never talk about the attack on the middle class and poor by Greenspan and Reagan starting in 1981. Wages have stagnated since then while the top 5% of earners pay 28% tax rather than 70%. The wealth of the same top 5% has gone from $5 trillion to approx. $40 trillion.
707hoser 1 year ago
We never talk about the "attack on the middle class" for the same reason we don't discuss the military movements of the orcs of Mordor. The middle class has continued to grow and the myth of the "stagnating middle class" has been long discredited. Not only must you cherry pick peaks and valleys to show a real wage decline, the fact is that total real compensation - what people ACTUALLY earn - has show consistent and substantial growth. The middle class (pre-recession) reached new heights.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom No attack on middle class you say. In 1976 the top 1% earned 9% of the country's income, now they earn 24%. You say total real compensation has grown, yes it has, the top 1% of earners took 80% of that increase in wealth from 1980 to 2005. The average CEO earned 42x the average worker in 1976, now that figure is 531x what the average worker earns. You and Stossel say the problem is the minimum wage, you must be kidding me!
707hoser 1 year ago
Yes, no attack on the middle class. In fact, early assertions about shrinkage of the middle class overlooked that the move was UPWARD not downward. All you are arguing is envy - what the wealthiest or CEOs earn is irrelevant to the relative increase in prosperity across the board. Complaining that someone else makes more is simple whimpering. The 80% argument is factually wrong (and is based on an estimate that doesn't hold - yes I am familiar with the unreproduced "study").
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes, there is an attack on the lower and middle class. According to IRS figures from 1986 to 2006 income for the bottom 50% of earners has declined by 1% in real terms. Meanwhile, productivity improved by 48% in the US over the same period. The disparity in incomes is relevant to the topic. This all proves that the powerless in the work force need the protection of a minimum wage despite the arguments from right-wingers.
707hoser 1 year ago
Actually, the IRS figures say nothing of the kind. You are again using analysis by the laughable (and unreliable) EPI. The IRS does not maintain base income figures (they capture AGI (tax related data). They also do not collect data on total incomes or compensation. These figures are gathered by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The standard of living has increased for EVERY income quintile. That you baselessly wish to make this about envy (income disparity) is sad.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
That you can't grasp the fact-based argument that the minimum wage is not merely detrimental economically but, instead, harms the very people it is ostensibly designed to help is the problem. Instead, you wish to go off onto tangents (some of which are factually wrong) about disparate income levels as if a) they had anything to do with the topic, b) they were economically harmful in any way or c) they demonstrate harm to workers (whose real median compensation has grown steadily).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom There are some people who, in my experience, would have a problem getting hired at any wage rate. Again, I'm not averse to using a two-tier system for younger workers. Obviously, a minimum wage should be set at a reasonable rate. The $7.25/hr. current rate should be at least $10/hr. to keep up with 1968 purchasing power. I'm not advocating that but there should be some floor below which we don't want workers to fall. $7.25/hr. is OK for now.
707hoser 1 year ago
Your "experience" (contrary to reality as it may be) is irrelevant, Your assessment of a "reasonable" minimum wage rate does not change the fact that, at any rate, it is economically harmful and doesn't help the poor. Thus, for obvious reasons, the only "reasonable" minimum wage is zero. The market wage, being much higher than that would never allow wages to fall lvery low (as history demonstrates). Purchasing power of some earlier wrong-headed level is just meaningless.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom The purchasing power of the minimum wage set in 1968 is only wrong-headed in your Libertarian world. It is ridiculous to say that the only ''reasonable'' minimum is zero. There are approx. 500,000 people working on minimum. Thank goodness you silly Libertarian anarchists will never get into power. If you want to learn more about this look up Ravi Batra, a real economist, unlike Stossel.
707hoser 1 year ago
The point is that ANY minimum wage is demonstrably wrong-headed because it provides NO societal benefit and, in fact, HARMS the very people it is ostensibly designed to protect. Its as if you were debating whether or not we should o back to the 1968 standard for arsenic in drinking water. You mean a full half a million people (out of 154 MILLION job holders), mostly young people and secondary income earners make the minimum?!?!? - less than 1/2 of 1%?!?! A catastrophe!!!
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom The minimum wage is not wrong-headed and is a benefit because it provides the low wage earner with at least the means to provide for themselves. Would you prefer they go on welfare? If the minimum wage is so unimportant in our economy why are you Libertarian idealogues so much against it? It seems funny to me that you can have minimum standards for environmental and health reasons but not for the most important reason: the well-being of the weakest in our economy.
707hoser 1 year ago
The minimum wage has never accompished what you suggest. Instead it has always put more low wage workers out of work or resulted in a reduction in their hours. It has never prevented people from going on welfare. And economists - nearly all of them - oppose the minimum wage because it is well-established that it harms the economy, workers and the poor. The well-being of the weakest in our economy is precisely why the minimum wage must be opposed.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
And picking one of the four or five economists who agrees with your position as opposed to the overwhelming majority of "real" economists who base their findings on sound theory and research only serves to demonstrate how desperate you are to defend an indefensible position.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Overwhelming majority of ''real'' economists like John Stossel, that's funny.
707hoser 1 year ago
The overwhelming majority of real economists including virtually every economist who stuidies the issue, huge majorities in every survey of economists including the membership of the American Economic Association. That the minimum wage does nothing but harm is a concept as close to universal acceptance among economists as any other.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom I've seen studies by so-called economists who believe that an ''increase'' in the minimum wage hurts the poor, usually from right-wing think tanks. I prefer to believe an independent economist. Where is a study that shows that the very ''existence'' of the minimum wage hurts low income earners? To answer one of Stossel's objections: workers under 20 can get a lower minimum of $4.25/hr. for 90 days. Of course, in your fantasy world, people can work for nothing.
707hoser 1 year ago
The overwhelming majority of studies on the minimum wage have been performed by independent economists. Not one single study that has survived scrutiny has found anything other than that the minimum wage hurts the poor. Search "50 years of reserach on the minimum wage", search Newmark & Wascher, or Burkhauser - the research is overwhelmingly independent (unlike that performed by the Economic Policy Institute which is wholly owned by organized labor and has been repeatedly discredited.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Card, Krueger and Katz wrote a rebuttal to Newmark & Wascher so the debate on the minimum wage is far from settled. The main negative effect of the minimum wage is on younger workers and is dependent on the level it is set at. That is largely eliminated with the subminimum wage offered to that group of workers. You don't believe Krugman, Batra or any of the EPI studies. Fair enough, I realize that your ideology is totally opposed to a minimum wage. I happen to disagree.
707hoser 1 year ago
And, again, Neumark, Wascher, Block, Bernard, Vedder, Gallaway and several other noted economists literally obliterated that "rebuttal". The issue IS settled; your desire to believe otherwise and willingness to cherry-pick sources (without even knowing their subsequent treatment) serves you ill. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence far outweighs the fringe sources you select.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom I hardly think that Paul Krugman and Ravi Batra are ''fringe'' sources. They are both well-known and respected economists. You can defame Krugman if you like but he is far better known than any of the economists you mention. The issue is settled only in your imagination. I'll believe Krugman and Batra, not Stossel.
707hoser 1 year ago
They are fringe sources because their views represent only a tiny minority fo economists. Both are well-known because of their publishing but respected is another issue entirely (and not the case). Krugman is NOT far better known than the economists I have mentioned that conclude that the minimum wage is harmful, Stigler is recognized as the authority on the subject, Clark was the dean of American economics, Hayek among the most widely read. Stossel is simply repeating established economics.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
You keep repeating that you won't believe Stossel as if that helps your case rather than demonstrating its weakness. The FACT is that there is a vast and overwhelming body of economic evidence accepted almost unanimously in the economics profession and consistent with the only viable theories on the matter in economics that the minimum wage is nothing but economically harmful. Stossel and I are simply relying on that FACT and selecting only the tiny fringe that disagrees is just silly.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Yes, it IS true that "the main negative effect of the minimum wage is on younger workers and is dependent on the level it is set at" - got one at last. No, the issue is NOT largely eliminated by a subminimum. That is just another bald erroneous assertion added to the list.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom So, if you got a zero minimum wage, what do think would happen? Would that enormous damage done to the economy (according to you) be undone and unemployment eased? Magically businesses would start investing and all our problems be solved? Tell me how all this would play out in your wonderful Libertarian paradise? The minimum wage must be a terrible drag on the economy if what you say is true. What do you think?
707hoser 1 year ago
The economy would allocate labor resources in the most efficient manner. The supply of jobs would increase and not just at lower wage rates because compensation investment would be reallocated. Workers would make market wages (many would be unaffected, others would make amounts maybe a bit lwer than the former minimum but not much lower. Economic efficiencies would increase creating still more jobs and prosperity. It needn't be spectacular but it would all be positive and material. Simple.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Fletch would that labor allocation cover the 4 billion asians brought into competition with western workers, or would it just magicly leave them out.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Your naivete is breathtaking. Businesses are not going to hire more just because of no minimum wage. That is a minor consideration compared to taxes, safety and environmental regulations, customer base . Businesses look at the ''total business environment'' before investing. I think businesses do better with a minimum wage as it reduces turnover of staff, actually saving them money. Saving a dollar or two per hour is trivial. Look somewhere else to save the economy.
707hoser 1 year ago
It's not my fault that comprehension of economics and how the world works utterly contradicts your preconceived worldview. The total business environment is what the minimum wage distorts and every single, solitary job in the entire economy is created for one reason and one reason alone. Businesses make the determination that the cost of hiring that next person is less than the return that the business can earn with that additional worker. That businesses will hire more is a certainlty.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom My worldview is one that has a minmum wage. Get over it.
707hoser 1 year ago
My worldview is one that has a minimum wage in it, too. That isn't the issue. It's just a recognition of reality. The problem is that your worldview is one in which there is no economic consensus that the minimum wage is always economically detrimental and, as such, never justified. That is a denial of reality. If you wish to deny reality, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean that you can state such foolish beliefs to others and expect them to agree with such idiocy.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom You can state sources and studies to back up your claim that the minimum wage hurts the people it is supposed to help. Your position is theoretical, driven by a Libertarian ideology and unprovable unless the minimum wage is abolished. You believe it because certain economists have said it is so. I don't put too much faith in economists as they are wrong a lot of the time. But if you want to believe all that you are told and it suits your view of the world, good for you.
707hoser 1 year ago
Are you a second ID for louietheloser??? Usually he's the one putting out the argument (that proves the one making it has an IQ comparable to gravel) that all of the studies WHICH ARE EMPIRICAL EXAMINATIONS OF REALITY or mere theory and could only be proved if the minimum wgae were abolished. In reality, of course, the studies of the real world impact of hikes and lowerings odf the minimum wage demonstrate the FACT of its harm and are not theoretical at all.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom All your arguments are the standard ones we always hear from Libertarians: the minimum wage is hurting small business and the poor. Small businesses usually treat their employees well and pay them above minimum wage. Libertarians pretend to care about small business and the poor. In fact, Libertarians only care about Capital and the freedom of Capital to maximize the return on its investment. They want the freedom to pay their employees as little as possible.
707hoser 1 year ago
I made no mention of small business (its business in general). the reaon that these arguments are "standard" is because they are logically, historically and factually correct - regardless of whether they are presented by a libertarian or not. The rest of your response is nothing but a puerile ad hominem attack that demonstrates you have nothing left of value to contribute.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom No, they are your slanted view of ''studies'' which are far from scientific. The fact is that nobody should have to work 40 hours a week for less than poverty wages. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your views, but, oh well.
707hoser 1 year ago
Like I said. You never read them; you have no legitimate arguments to present so you simply dismiss them as "far from scientific" (which only demonstrates how disconnected for reality you are and how low you'll stoop to make an entirely specious point). Then you present your personal feelings as argument when anybody should be given the opportunity to work at whatever wages they can get. All you would do is tell those willing to work for less is that they aren't allowed to work at all.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Sounds familier you know it all, and no one else knows anything. Who would bother to talk to you, all you know is DOL stats, and government, and corporate sponsered talking points. You have been discredited by all you debate. Do you actually believe you ever win a debate.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, if you think economic studies are pure science, I have to disagree. That's not to dismiss the credentials of the economists doing the study, its just in the nature of the beast. As to your last sentence, there lies the crux of the argument.
707hoser 1 year ago
Yes, economic studies are pure science, that IS the nature of the beast. That you disagree - well, you can disagree that the earth revolves around the sun or that human lungs process oxygen or that hydrogen is flammable ... and you get the same results.
And yes, the last sentence is the crux of the argumnet. I am willing to let people work to better themselves if they so choose without the government from preventing them from doing so - you aren;t willing to give them that freedom.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Folks need a level paying field, you do not support that, you support the government, corporate collusion, of globalization, that we have today. That is not freedom. Americans labor competing with Asia labor is not a level playing field. It only drives american wages down, and does not change the Asian laborers lot in life, there is to many of them to ever have wage inflation. You know that, but you are anti labor, and support a two class system.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom I got a laugh from your analogies. They show a good imagination, completely idiotic of course, but very funny. I doubt whether you could find a scientist on earth who would argue with those concepts. On the other hand, you could find many different opinions amongst economists regarding monetary policy, as an example. You are willing to let people ''beggar'' themselves. In a civilized society we all have certain standards for working conditions, well, maybe you don't.
707hoser 1 year ago
Laughter in ignorance is hardly surprising. Of course, had you a grasp of the issues under discussion you would see we are not talking about theoretical models (an error that has already been pointed out to you) but observable phenomena recorded with (entirely) scientific methods. And the historical fact is that working conditions and wages have both steadily increased in the absence of such interventions all the way back to the Industrial Revolution. You are inadvertantly calling for beggary
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, I know you like research based on observable phenomena using scientific methods (your words). Why don't you check out a new study from UC Berkeley ''Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders'' by Dube, Lester and Reich. On second thought, maybe you'd better give it a miss as it doesn't agree with your worldview. It can be a shock to realize that you are not right all the time.
707hoser 1 year ago
Best keep reading. The study to which you refer (which is not "new" but from 2007) found little or no "disemployment" large negative effects in examining cross state minimum wage effects. Their assertion that state vs. national examinations are superior have been roundly criticized, but, beyond that, the subsequent research of the SAME THREE ECONOMISTS found "large negative effects" from the minimim wage even when there was little direct disemployment. Oops.
Nice try though.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Actually, the study has been revised and re-released this year. They say that they have corrected problems with the previous study. I am still reading but haven't found the ''large negative effects'' of the minimum wage you mention. Not yet anyway.
707hoser 1 year ago
Then keep reading. Even in the absence of disemployment, they find reduced job mobility, reduced new job creation, and reduced compensated hours.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
And that study is following the same pattern as the previous 3%-4% of minimum wage studies (yes the percentage is that small) that argue the absence of negative effects, just as with Card & Krueger: 1) the initial study is published, 2) it's latched onto by MW advocates; 3) the study is subjected to scrutiny and found to have (glaring) problems, 4) it is reissued conceding some errors but not capitualting, 5) further scrutiny finds the reissue wanting and we move on. We're at step 4.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Hey , would that be in the real world or the abstract world, that fletch lives in. Have you memorized these studies, in the same manner that you do the DOL stats. Little wonder intelligent reasoning escapes you.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Ceratinly economists are often wrong - you have chosen a few to believe. And from that perspective, ignoring Batri and Krugman who have NOT performed actual studies and are ONLY presenting theories as opposed to the economists I have named (Stigler, Vedder, Blcok) who have performed actual REAL WORLD studies is entirely appropriate. I believe the facts demonstrated in the real world - that the minimum wage is harmful has been so proved. You wish to believe only theorists with your OPINION.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, certainly I agree with Krugman and Batra (among others) and I've read the ''real world'' studies you talk about. The results of these studies suggest a link between minimum wages set too high or increasing at too rapid a pace, and a rise in unemployment. You have taken these studies and jumped to the conclusion that any minimum wage at any level is bad for the economy. That is a conclusion that is not based on reality.
707hoser 1 year ago
Clearly you have NOT read the real world studies because if you had I would have to conclude that you are lying you ass off about their content. The overwhelming body of research demonstrates the harmful impact of ANY minimum wage set above the market wage. I'll grant you that a minimum wage set at 19 cents an hour would not be economically harmful but then no one ever suggests a minimum wage below a level the market sets - then it wouldn't be harmful, just irrelevant.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Nowhere in the studies does is conclude that a minimum wage is harmful per se.
707hoser 1 year ago
In the narrowest sense that is true - but essentially every one of them asserts (because that's what the data indicates) that any minimum wage SET ABOVE THE MARKET WAGE is invariably harmful. Any minimum wage rate set below that which employers and workers are already willing to accept is irrelevant and has no impact; any minimum wage set above that level, again according to all the real world evidence - including in Crad & Krueger's sample set - is harmful.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom You know, I think I agree with you and the studies you mention: the minimum wage is harmful if it is set above the ''market value'' of labor and useless if it is set below that level. I happen to believe that it is below the ''market value'' right now. There you are, we both win. Well, not really, as I would like to see it higher. Still, its not a perfect world is it?
707hoser 1 year ago
I didn;t say "market value" but the consept is the same. by definition, the "market value" is the wage as determined in the marjetplace. It is definitionally impossible for wages actually being paid to be "below the market value. YOUR concept of market value is entirely meaningless - only the value determined by the interaction of worker and emplyer has any market meaning. If the minimum wage were set below the "market value" virtually no one would make precisely that.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago 2
@FletchforFreedom Hey I need to ask, are these real economist, are they the ones that teaches economic theory, or do you have some that live in the real world?
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom What you don't mention is that most economists believe that the minimum wage has a minimal effect on the economy, either good or bad. But I think that this argument is not about economics for you, it is pure ideology which makes you (and Stossel) reject the minimum wage, at any level. In your Libertarian view of the world, any government interference with the free market is an act of violence against individual freedom. Is that about right?
707hoser 1 year ago
Actually, I don't mention that most economists believe that the minimum wage has a minimal effect on the economy because the position is absurd on its face. Again, surveys of economists show that the overwhelming majority agree that it is harmful AND significantly so. Search for polls on the subject. My ideology might be relevant if it weren't for the fact that my responses have been entirely those of economic science and demonstrated research as opposed to your bald (inaccurate) assertions.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, now you've contradicted yourself. First you say that because only 500,000 wage earners are on minimum wage it shows that the minimum wage is unnecessary. Then you assert that it is significantly harmful to the economy. Make up your mind, which is it?
707hoser 1 year ago
That as few as 500,000 people earning the legal minimum is not an economic catastrophe is true (particularly since virtually none of them are trying to "raise a family" at that level). That assessment has nothing to do with the fact that the minimum wgae - even at the current level is significantly harful to the economy because it destroys jobs and channels resources to inefficient investments (due to the distortion) that is harful to the economy as a whole. No contradiction exists.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, with ''only'' 500,000 people on minimum wage, obviously it is not having a significant negative effect on the economy. Please explain how it is ''destroying jobs'' and causing ''distortion in the economy'' and ''channeling resources to inefficient investments''. It is a huge contradiction.
707hoser 1 year ago
I am not responsible for your inability to grasp a logical position. Any price floor, whether it be for materials (see protectionist tariffs) or labor (the minimum wage) alters the market decision making process from the most efficient allocation of resources (which is the source of maximum jobs and prosperity) to a less efficient allocation that incorporates the price floor. This is both very harful and significant even if the market price resulted in only 100,000 minimum wage workers.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom This is a really stupid argument. Our economy is full of price-fixing and monopolistic practices. There is a price floor on all kinds of materials, goods and services. No business is going to sell their product at below their production cost. Why should people sell their labor at a rate that is below their subsistence level? You are still greatly exaggerating the effect of the minimum wage. But I suppose that suits your beliefs
707hoser 1 year ago
No need to describe in advance (though you should have put a colon after "stupid argument. No the economy is demonstrably NOT full of price-fixing and monopolistic practices by any stretch of the imagination. And a price floor is an artifical restraint on prices; production costs result in a shift to the supply curve which is something entirely different. People should sell their labor for as much as they can get - almost invariably above subsistence level in a competitive market.
cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Having demonstrsated your complete lack of a grasp of economics (and even what a price floor is) and a complete disconnect from reality (the prevalence of price-fixing and monopoly, it is hardly surprising that you continue to argue (despite the realities glaring you in the face) that I am exaggerating anything. After all you keep trying to exaggerate the views of a tiny minority to argue that their microscopic dissent alters the fact that the harmful effects of the minimum wage are established
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
In fact, even the EPI (who tends to cherry pick "labor economists" from its own ranks and those of sister organizations in its polling - as I said, its reliability has been shredded), which actively supports increasing the minimum wage cannot escape the facts. In a 2007 survey of labor economists, nearly 3/4 (73%) concede that an increase in the minimum wage would result in job losses and reduced entry-level hiring; two thirds (68%) agreed it would not fight poverty. The issue is settled.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Leaving aside EPI and Stossel, who are both biased, why don't you read Paul Krugman's position on the subject as well as that of Ravi Batra. They believe that with the current weakness of unions minimum wage laws are necessary. If, as you believe, an increase in minimum wage is harmful, then you must believe a decrease would be beneficial. These economists would completely disagree with you. They probably know more about the subject than Stossel or yourself.
707hoser 1 year ago
In other words, I should ignore John Bates Clark, Gary Becker, George Stigler, F.A. Hayek, and all of the most respected economists in history and rely instead on two economists not taken seriously by the economic profession as a whole (we are still waiting for Krugman's "tidal wave" of inflation following the first Reagan tax cuts). Even Krugman doesn't argue that raising minimum wages isn't harmful; he argues against cutting them. Why would I make such an irrational choice?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Before it comes up, let me point out that I described Paul Krugman as not being taken seriously by members of the economics profession - which is actually an understatement. This has no bearing on the opinions of the fawning readers of his columsn in the New York Times or the same group of Noregians who felt it appropriate to honor Barark Obama, Yasser Arafat and the Intergovernmnetal Panel on Climate Change with the peace prize.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom In your openion is it in the poors interest for Asia to offer up its poor laboring class to multinational corporations as cheap labor. Wouldn't you say that creates an impossible situation for American labor, as long as we allow these products manufactured by .20/hr. labor, to be sold in the US duty free.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Since you've been so thorouly proved to be a liar and no one takes you seriously on Youtube (having made the Youtube nutball top ten that's making the rounds) and still repeating the .20/hr lie, its clear that you are oblivious to the total embarrassment you are.
But, hey, thanks for playing!
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Further, not only is your assertion about states "doing better" objectively false, the work of Card & Krueger (trumpeted by EPI has been thoroughly discarded). You should stop listening to the Economic (sic) Policy Institute whose pronouncements have been repeatedly debunked such as the claim during the Kerry campaign that insourced jobs paid $9,000 less than outsourced jobs. Snopes had a field day with that EPI idiocy, not to mention the BLS whose data the EPI distorted.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom You say that Card & Krueger have been debunked, by whom? In any case, that doesn't invalidate the need for a minimum wage law. If the minimum wage was to keep up the same purchasing power as it had in 1968 it would have to be just over $10/hr. I would be in favor of a two-tier minimum wage, starting lower for young workers. That seems to work in jurisdictions that have tried it.
707hoser 1 year ago
By literally EVERYONE. Not only do 50 years of detailed research confirm the impact of the minimum wage, specific studies by a Fed economist, Neumark & Wascher, Walter Block, Burkhauser, et al, Richard Vedder and even the Employment Policies Institute (which while provately funded has never been discredited as the union-funded Economic Policy Institute has) have torn the Card & Krueger studies to shreds.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
That the "need" for a minimum wage law has been invalidated stems from the demonstrated conclusion that its ONLY effect is to reduce employment (particularly among low skilled minority workers). It has been demonstrated to be an utter failure at diminishing poverty and is unnecessary to ensure that employers pay higher wage levels. That the minimum wage is lower in real terms than in the past is completely irrelevant to the issue - that the minimum wage does nothing but harm. Period.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
I suppose Stossel would have no problem with "Juden Raus!" signs posted all over hotels, stores, cafes or airports the way they were under the Nazis.... What a sad fuck!
FranklyMisterShankly 1 year ago
@FranklyMisterShankly
I would boycott such a business but I wouldn't dream of using violence against it.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@FranklyMisterShankly - if they were mandated by the government, he'd have a huge issue with them. If they were put up by the business owner, then he'd hate them, and not stay at that hotel, eat at that cafe.
The Nazi's were about all about government mandates and were as anti-libertarian as one could imagine. That you don't get that makes me feel sad for you, because you'll feel great about legislating away your liberty.
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 In that case, you should move to Somalia, where there is no government at all to "legislate liberty," where everyone is a gun owner, where you'll never have to fill out a tax form and where the strongest rule by brute force. Good luck in your new libertarian utopia!
FranklyMisterShankly 1 year ago
@FranklyMisterShankly
This video is about the minimum wage. You talked about businesses putting up racist posters. Now you are talking about Somalia. You can't stick to debating one issue. If one point is refuted then you just go onto your next claim rather than admitting that you were wrong.
Debating is not about being correct. It is about convincing people that you are correct. I have no doubt that you are good at that but the way that you do it is very dishonest.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever Fair enough, let me make my argument pertinent to the minimum wage. Move to Somalia, that great libertarian paradise, where they have no government to set the minimum wage, control working conditions or even legislate on the "liberty" of employing child labor.
FranklyMisterShankly 1 year ago
@FranklyMisterShankly
Wait a second. Are you arguing for the social contract? Do you realise that that would justify every government action in which people where allowed to leave the country? That would mean that until the summer of 1941 Hitler's actions against the Jews were justified because they were allowed to leave until then.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever
Also I could go up to somebody's house, put a gun to their head and ,"say do not work for this wage or I will use this gun against you. However you are perfectly free to move to another house where someone else will do the exact same thing to you". Would that really be justified?
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever
Also Somalia is not libertarian. Libertarians are against government because it uses violence. If a private individual or group of individuals that don't claim to be a government use violence then they are still violating libertarian principles.
Anyway Somalia is governed by the Transitional Federal Government. In 2009 they implemented Sharia Law.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever
In fact I should have said initiates violence. If somebody attacks you then you have the right to defend yourself.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@FranklyMisterShankly - So you really don't understand what libertarian means, do you. There is a difference between limited government protecting the rights of the people, and anarchy. It's not complicated. A limited government is needed to protect property rights, and ensure that trades in the free market are voluntary. That is hardly the case in Somalia. That you think Somalia is libertarian just puts a big spotlight on how little you know about what it means to be a libertarian.
mpc91 1 year ago
Which is worse? Setting wages at eight bucks an hour and risking unemployment or having full employment with wages at three bucks a week. I'd stick with the minimum wage. Thank you.
bostonbest0407 1 year ago
@bostonbest0407
That is because you fail to connect how labor costs in the form of employee wages effects pricing on goods and services. Businesses will simply pass that cost onto workers by downsizing their labor force and/or pass it on to consumers by raising prices on their products and services which will effectively wipe out the wage increase.
conservakid85 1 year ago
Right on
Jazzper79 1 year ago
The government instilled "minimum wage" because private companies weren't paying livable wages. Supply and demand is not something that makes a company look at a workers' wage; unless it's the senator whom has the power to vote on such legislation that is being paid for. The minimum wage increases at a slower rate than inflation because of libertarian jackasses like John Stossel who don't want anybody to do anything and just see how things pan out. Twas the case once here, and it sucked.
joshuatreet 1 year ago
oh yeah because now the minimum wages are so livable now. and how high do minimum wages have to go? huh. you do realize the higher the wages the less there would be in that company. fewer workers because they pay so much for there employees. what the government doesnt realize is that with the high minimum wages that we do have companies cant afford it, they will be in the red even sometimes bankruptcy to keep just a small few people on minimum wage salary it isnt far to the companies.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
US. is becoming communist
youtubalisation 1 year ago
@youtubalisation No. We're not taxed enough (unless you count corporate fees that companies push on you so they don't have to pay their immensely fair share). Nor are we forced into sacrificing our very capabilities for the greater good (it's your right to be a selfish asshole if you so choose). Minimum wage is still unfair, so, the poor will stay poor. Even without communist policy. Yay free market! Doin' the job better than the Soviets ever imagined!
joshuatreet 1 year ago
haha we are no where near communism, have you even been to a communist country? we are FAR from it dude trust me. nothing to fear man. what we are becoming is a bunch of people buckling our knees to Washington and not standing up for what is right, and whats constitutional.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
...the federal government had a sound monetary policy, this wouldn't be a major issue to worry about. The federal government makes life worse for low wage workers by borrowing HUGE amounts of money and then taxing us to pay it back. They print more money and their economic "stimulus" creates an inflation tax on our salaries & perpetuating the poverty. Of course this works out great if you're the LENDER!
MishuTaste 1 year ago
I understand his point as far as small businesses w/o a lot of money to spend, but some of these major corporations are getting a bargain w/ minimum wage. There are some Americans who are not skilled or educated & don't have plans for a career. So they depend on a service/factory job to SURVIVE. It is extremely hard to survive in America on a full time minimum wage salary. And landlords despise people who make low wages. They won't let you rent an apartment even if you can afford it. If the...
MishuTaste 1 year ago
ok what about this, we dont give minimum wages to the smaller corporations and small businesses we give them a choice and an option to what they can pay there employees and those companies that do bring home more then or close to 100 billion dollars in revenue get the maximum minimum wages enforced on them. im a libertarian bro but i do understand where people come from that companies do take advantage of lack of regulations. this way both sides get what they want.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@profwito
In fact there is a question that should be asked to the statists. Should consumers be forced to go to shops owned by people of another race or ethnicity?
Scoforever 1 year ago
What a bunch of b.s. If businesses had no minimum wage regs. they would simply pay the least possible, just as they do in third world countries. No minimum wage is a great way to grow your poor population, which leads to greater crime.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago 2
@sophiemarie49 i hate when people like stossel say some people are not worth minimum wage becausee their skills are not worth that "much" what a sick and horrible thing to say, min wage like u said is there to prevent exploiation and slave wages
MrFREEDOMRIDER1959 1 year ago
What a bunch of b.s. Stossel should try living on minimum wage. It's not really a living wage, you can't survive on it unless you work much more than 40 hours.
His premise that raising the wage keeps owners from creating jobs is wrong. It really is about supply and demand. With so many good paying jobs going overseas, local businesses don't have as many well-paid customers.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49
A minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. It is simply the bare minimum a person can be compensated for their labor. The fact remains that raising the minimum wage beyond what supply and demand dictates has destroyed low skilled, entry level jobs. Rather than pay janitors or a shopkeepers to maintain the appearance of their store, business owners will now take on that responsibility themselves or designate these responsibilities to another employee.
conservakid85 1 year ago
This is a smart man, look at our economy now and the unemployment rate. How can you increase minimum wage while taxes go up. That does not make any sense. I have to pay people more and then pay the government a shit load of takes, plus be profitable against big corporations? We don't live in a free market we live in fascism.
LatinLeo86 1 year ago