Not necessarily. If the price floor (MW in this case) is set below the equilibrium point, there will be no effect on the level of employment.

“First off iowa’playboy?’ you are wrong to say that “There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage.” Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 35 percent of workers who receive a minimum wage are their families’ sole earners.”
Which means what exactly? The effects are the same whether 0% or 100% of MW earners are their household’s only income source.

“Tyler claims that “employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW” - simplistic supply and demand argument.”
Which also happens to be true. I could talk about the macroeconomic effects on production possiblities or aggregate supply, but since you can’t even grasp basic supply and demand, I see no point. Tell you what, unless you can tell me specifically what’s wrong with my points, don’t even waste my or your time.

“However, in reality, not in some pie-in-the-sky theory, the minimum wages does not reduce the number of jobs offered. The non-partisan Fiscal Policy Institute produced a report in 2004 looking at how employment growth in states with a higher-than-federal minimum wage compared to those with the federal minimum wage.”
First of all, can you name me a single exception to the law of supply and demand? Didn’t think so.

Second, the MW most certainly does produce unemployment, but the reasons why this is not reflected in some studies are numerous and complex. One important reason is that states that have a higher than federal MW tend to have higher market labor prices anyways, so the price floor doesn’t apply to hardly any positions, even though it’s higher in nominal dollars than in other states. Further, even though the MW is a cause of unemployment, it is by no means the only cause. Unemployment is going to be lower in areas where wages are higher, because higher wages are caused by a greater demand for labor. Ceteris Paribus, the quantity of a product/service (in this case labor) demanded decreases as prices increase, for this effect not to occur there would need to be an infinite supply of labor, something which clearly does not exist.

If you want see the effects of a high MW, check out Western Europe with it’s nearly ubiquitous double-digit unemployment amongst young, unskilled workers.

“The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy – the years 1998 through 2000 – as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).”
“In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states.”
Again, this is an effect primarily of higher nominal market wages in states with higher MW’s. If what this article is implying (that higher costs are preferable to lower costs) why not raise it to $50/hr? If government, by simple decree, can increase the amount of wealth in an economy, why not raise to $1000/hr, then we would all be rich, according to you. Of course this is a ridiculous proposition, but it’s the logical conclusion of the standard argument for the MW.

“Tyler also claims that raising the minimum wage will make “society generally poorer”. The truth is that taxpayers and society benefit from an increased minimum wage. Studies show that minimum wage only pay for about 34 percent of a family’s basic living costs. These families rely on the government - and taxpayers - to pick up the tab for much of the rest - housing assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, ECT. The self-sufficient these people are, the less they have to rely on taxpayers.”
Yes, more unemployed resources will result in less total production. The MW results in higher labor costs, and thus less labor being utilized. This is self-evident to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics. I seriously have a hard time believing that I actually have to defend this position.

So let’s hear the pro side, eh? Stop with the blatantly begged questions and and show me - factually - how I’m wrong.

“I would agree with you on the first and third things there. And for different reasons, the second thing. All wars are terrible, but my two sons both served there, Dave, and they both would go back. You’re watching too much of the moe, larry, and curly networks, CNN (Al-Jazeera, USA) and reading too much of the New York/Al-Queda Times, USA/Al Jazeera Today.”

Anyone who has paid attention to reality in the past four years knows that those three media outlets certainly tried their best to propagate the lies that led to this disaster of a war in the first place. Hell, a New York Times reporter got put in jail because she protected one of the administration officials that shamelessly outed a CIA operative. That same reporter repeated, chapter and verse, every piece of information she was fed by the administration, to have the administration cite it as “evidence” of their arguments. Anyone who actually watches CNN knows that they care a hell of a lot more about Jonbenet Ramsey than what’s going on in Iraq. The media have been willing participants in stifling the debate on Iraq.

Good for your sons, we all appreciate their service. But I speak for a large number of people here and around the country when I say that they deserve a hell of a lot better than to go back to that mess, and shame on the President who created it.

JNord, respectfully, first of all, you have to accept government and think-tank studies as fact. I live in the real world….I know better. There is absolutely no way 35% of minimum wage earners are main breadwinners. In that situation, the taxpayer is the main breadwinner….as there is the collosus of handouts that you point out above. All of those, not to mention prices on everything go up when the minimum wage is increased. You can follow that with every minimim wage increase. One other statistic goes up every time the minimum wage goes up. Unemployment. And it effects non-skilled wage earners more than any other thing a leftist could do to the economy.

The minimum wage is meant to give people the basic skills to move to the next level of employment. With the unemployment rate one of the lowest in our history, any “breadwinner” making close to minimum wage is doing so solely to qualify for government handouts. There are simply too many opportunities out there. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with self-sufficience….it never has.

It is nice to see that there are people on here that can summarize the supply and demand concept from Chapter 1 of an Economics 101 textbook (and Republican Party talking points). The fact of the matter is an increase in the minimum wage IS good for society.

First off iowa’playboy?’ you are wrong to say that “There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage.” Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 35 percent of workers who receive a minimum wage are their families’ sole earners.

Tyler claims that “employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW” - simplistic supply and demand argument.

However, in reality, not in some pie-in-the-sky theory, the minimum wages does not reduce the number of jobs offered. The non-partisan Fiscal Policy Institute produced a report in 2004 looking at how employment growth in states with a higher-than-federal minimum wage compared to those with the federal minimum wage.

“The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy – the years 1998 through 2000 – as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).
“In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states.”

You can check out reality for yourself at http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/minimumwageandsmallbusiness.pdf

Tyler also claims that raising the minimum wage will make “society generally poorer”. The truth is that taxpayers and society benefit from an increased minimum wage. Studies show that minimum wage only pay for about 34 percent of a family’s basic living costs. These families rely on the government - and taxpayers - to pick up the tab for much of the rest - housing assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, ECT. The self-sufficient these people are, the less they have to rely on taxpayers.

The economy in the 90’s is an interesting but complex subject. The economy was considered “good” by most, but much of the boom was artificial, caused by a steady expansion of the money supply by the fed. From 1991 to 1999 M3 more than doubled. Of course this boom was unsustainable, and before the recession could run its course, Bush and Greenspan panicked after 9/11 and dumped even more currency into the economy. IMO, this is the cause of the currently collapsing housing bubble, sub-zero savings rate, and the general “squeeze” the middle class is now feeling. But I think I’m getting off subject here…

“Given industry’s 200-year history of routinely screwing employees over unless government intervenes,”

Oh really Dave, the “exploited workers” thing is getting a bit tired, isn’t it? Employers don’t treat their workers better now than in the past because of government regulation, they treat their workers better because they have to; as productivity increases, workers can command higher wages, more benefits, and better working conditions. In fact, government intervention tends to impede this increase in productivity.

“I think a minimum wage is certainly in all of our best interests.”

How so? I’ve clearly shown how it isn’t. Any in-depth look at the effects of the MW show it’s pretty much an untenable policy. Saying that the MW is in everyone’s best interests implies that high production costs are preferable to low production costs, a completely nonsensical position.

“As liberals, as Democrats, a long-overdue cost-of-living increase in the minimum wage should be a higher priority than any short-term business liability.”

Just because it’s a well-intentioned policy doesn’t mean that it will create the desired results. Again, something being good for business doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s bad for workers.

“What I was originally speaking to in the first question Tyler quoted, though, was the out-and-out hypocrisy of Congress voting themselves a payraise, yet again, then turning around and saying that the lowest-paid workers don’t deserve it. To think: this Congress!”

Yeah, I don’t think that Congress ought to have the power to give themselves a pay raise at all.

What I was originally speaking to in the first question Tyler quoted, though, was the out-and-out hypocrisy of Congress voting themselves a payraise, yet again, then turning around and saying that the lowest-paid workers don’t deserve it. To think: this Congress!

Ooooh, Dave I’m definitely going to have to call you on this one too. You obviously imply here that the minimum wage is good for the poor, so why not raise it to $20 an hour? Hell, if the MW really does lift people out of poverty (as most people, including Republicans, seem to think) why not raise it to $100 an hour? Hmmm? This is yet another economic fallacy that derives from a variant of the false dichotomy fallacy, whereby people think that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that one person/group (business that employ low-skilled workers in this case) can only profit at the expense of others.

There are two main reasons (at least) why the MW is a bad policy -

1. It hurts the very people it intends to help. This is basic supply and demand. When the market price for unskilled labor is held above equilibrium (the point where the number of workers willing to work for a given price equals the number of employers willing to employ said workers at that price) there will be more workers willing to work due to the higher price. However, employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW. The number of workers unemployed by the MW of course depends on the difference between the equilibrium price and the gov’t mandated price floor, but also on the elasticity of demand for low-skilled labor.

2. It reduces total production, making society in general poorer. Because labor is now artificially more expensive, employers will consume less of it. Not only is this unemployment bad for its own sake, but when fewer workers are working there will obviously be fewer total goods produced, impeding growth.

These effects are not very pronounced in the US (indeed, some studies have failed to find any effect of the MW on the US labor market), as the market labor price for most jobs is now above the MW. But were it to be raised to, say $15/hour, the effects would be devastating indeed. Just look at France, which has a MW of around $11/hour US - the unemployment/underemployment rate among young workers (those most directly affected) is over 50%.

Dave said:
Sure, they are a nuisance, but most people understand that they are necessary.
No they don’t, Dave Do you think all monies spent by the government are necessary??

Dave said:
Republicans campaign on a promise of cutting your taxes - and they generally do cut taxes. But those tax cuts almost always disproportionately favor the wealthy.

Perhaps, Dave, that’s because the top 20% of wage earners pay 90% of all income taxes. Most of the bottom 20% don’t pay any at all. Based on that, the 2 tanks of gas would be yet another giveaway. You need to be more well read, Dave, and not recite the leftist handbood word for word.

Dave said:
Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to wasteful pork projects, a terrible war, and yet another payraise for the United States Congress.

I would agree with you on the first and third things there. And for different reasons, the second thing. All wars are terrible, but my two sons both served there, Dave, and they both would go back. You’re watching too much of the moe, larry, and curly networks, CNN (Al-Jazeera, USA) and reading too much of the New York/Al-Queda Times, USA/Al Jazeera Today.

Dave said
And many Americans still have to survive on $5.15 an hour. Where’s their payraise?

No Dave, virtually no Americans survive on $5.15 an hour. They have any number of handouts accessible to them, (paid for by the “wealthy”) food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc. etc etc. If you would read something other than the liberal handbook when you blurb out these slogans you would realize that over 70% of all minimum are teenagers working part-time jobs. There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage. The minimum wage was created to introduce upstart citizens into employment at an affordable rate for employers. Where’s their raise? When they learn those skills they get to move on to better employment either within the company they are working for or outside it.