Affects of minimum wage hikes.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Actually most businesses are corporations, even the tiny ones, and it is the corporation that fails. The owners simply loose the investment they had, not everything. This often does mean loosing a lot, but those people still had been paid, I assume, by their own corporation. And doubtless they have to start over, but usually they don't loose their house, cars and whatnot.

Many do since their company uses their own personal assets as seed capitol, mostly in the form of mortgage extensions. I personally had a fiend who accumulated $40,000 in debt in opening an unsuccessful cafe, it brought down his other successful cafe and left him in significant personal debt. He didn't lose his house though.

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Educated Unemployment is unemployment among people with an academic degree. Research[1] undertaken proved that the unemployment, and much more so, the underemployment of graduates, are devastating phenomena in the lives of graduates and a high incidence of either, are definite indicators of institutional ineffectiveness and inefficiency. Since the start of the economic recession in the US economy in 2007, increasing numbers of graduates have been unable to find permanent positions in their chosen field. According to the statistics, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates has been higher than that for all college graduates in the past decade, implying that it has been more difficult for graduates to find a job in recent years.(notes:College graduates are those aged 22 to 65 with a bachelor’s degree or higher; recent college graduates are those aged 22 to 27 with a bachelor’s degree or higher).[2] One year after graduation, the unemployment rate of 2007-2008 bachelor degree recipients is 9%.[3] Underemployment among graduates is high. Educated unemployment or underemployment is due to a mismatch between the aspirations of graduates and employment opportunities available to them. It was found that two factors are important regarding graduate unemployment or underemployment, namely incidence and duration. The duration of graduate unemployment in particular, appears to be a sharply declining function of age. It is principally a youth problem, most graduates find a job after some time, and once they have work experience in their chosen field, find subsequent job search efforts relatively easier. Given the effects of the current economic recession in the US, some graduates have gone more than a year since graduation without finding work in their chosen field, and have had to rely on odd jobs or work in the service industry, along with living with room-mates or moving back in with their parents to keep themselves current on their substantial student loan payments. High levels of long term graduate unemployment represent a massive threat to institutions of higher education within the US, which stand to lose a significant degree of social relevancy if the job market for graduates does not improve within the near future.

http://en.wikipedia....te_unemployment

New research released Monday says nearly half of the nation’s recent college graduates work jobs that don’t require a degree.

The report, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, concludes that while college-educated Americans are less likely to collect unemployment, many of the jobs they do have aren't worth the price of their diplomas.

The data calls into question a national education platform that says higher education is better in an economy that favors college graduates. President Obama has challenged the nation's universities to increase the number of degrees they grant by using federal funding as an incentive in a race-to-the-top-styled program. On the campaign trail, he outlined his administration's goal to boost the country’s college graduation rate to 60 percent by 2020.

................................

Of 41.7 million working college graduates in 2010, about 48 percent of the class of 2010 work jobs that require less than a bachelor’s degree, and 38 percent of those polled didn’t even need high school diplomas, the report found. Authors Richard Vedder, Jonathan Robe and Christopher Denhart said that the country could be overeducating its citizens, and asked if too many public dollars are spent on producing graduates that the nation's economy doesn't need.

In 2010, 39.3 percent of adults between the ages of 25 and 34 had a post-secondary degree, up from 38.8 percent in 2009. While the rate has creeped up steadily since 2008, underemployment has kept pace, according to Vedder's research -- the report found that the number of college grads will grow by 19 million between 2010 and 2020, while the number of jobs requiring that education is expected to grow by less than 7 million.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2568203.html

So whats a young person to do, go get a job in a minimum wage job or take a degree and hope that they are one of the lucky ones who don't end up in a minimum wage job because of their efforts ??

Br Cornelius

Edited April 20, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - as of Feb 2015, in the US, there were 5.1 million unfilled jobs and 9.6 million unemployed.

You'll perhaps note that one of those numbers is bigger than the other.

5.1 million unfilled jobs sounds like a lot though, right?

Until you look more closely into it.

Those unfilled jobs obviously include all the part-time jobs. All the jobs that pay minimum wage at those burger-flipping career Mecca's that every graduate wants on his resume.

But, still. They can't all be low-paying, right?

They're not.

However - over 3 million of those jobs opened up in February alone, because people moved to other jobs that were unfilled in January.

There's a churn in most companies, where staff leave and move to other jobs. Without those vacancies, no-one would be able to change jobs.

In short - most of the job vacancies are filled by people who already had a job moving to another job, causing a job vacancy which is then filled by people who already had a job, etc.

Blaming individuals for not having a job in the US today is like playing musical chairs with 25 people and 24 chairs, and telling the person who didn't get a chair that it's their fault for being lazy, and if they just tried harder, they, too, could have their own chair, just like everyone else.

And then the economy pulls another chair out. And you blame the next person for being lazy, too.

Anyway you want to slice it - there just aren't enough chairs.

Regardless of the type of degree you have.

I think that is a hypothesis. Can you support that hypothesis with data showing that most jobs are filled by people with jobs?

I think you're going to have to point out where I said "lazy". I said many, if not most, have made bad choices, such as pursuing an unmarketable degree. Or being so specialized in your training and experience that you can't get a job except the one you previously had. If you're a steel worker in a town with no steel mills, you've made a bad decision somewhere, and need to work to fix it. You're either going to need to move, or use your training to do something else, like auto manufacturing.

The problem people have is that they start in a dead end job and never gain any useful skills, and end up stuck for the rest of their life in dead end jobs. That is where training should come in. In stead of listening to the people telling you it isn't your fault and just accept your FedGov handout, they should do what they can to keep working their way up.

I've managed/supervised in three different situations, and have had to make these choices on who to let go, and who to hire. I let go the guys that had issues (worked slow, brought home to work, smoked dope, were working illegally), and hired the guys who came across as being the most experienced/skilled. This is simple business practices. You don't hire the guy with no experience and a spotty history, and a criminal conviction, if there are other people who don't have those issues. It is regrettable that some people end up basically unemployable, but please don't tell me that they had no hand in their own fate.

[acidhead]

I've actually noticed a trend here in Oregon where people are going BACK to the cashiers, rather then using the self check lanes. I don't understand it myself, but I think it may be that people would rather stand in line and wait then have to scan and bag their own groceries. Perhaps it indicates an uptick in laziness?

hmmm... really huh? Here I notice that the line up is longer for self checkout than the human checkout line.. at least at the grocery store. Perhaps at Home Depot or similar store their purchases are heavier and they dont want to lift the items? Though, you are correct... its rare I see somebody with a buggy full of groceries complete with weighable items... too lazy to figure out how to weigh them I suppose. Ive noticed on more than one occasion, @ the grocery store, where people were standing in line waiting for the self checkout and there were human cashiers available. When Ive seen that I use the human cashier. Its all about speed for me.... efficiency... the less time it takes to pay the better.... this is why I almost always pay with cash.... nothing dries me more crazy than standing at the back of a lineup while everybody ahead is scanning cards or chips and selecting accounts and punching passwords... than waiting for the ok..... Cash is sooo much quicker.

Edited April 20, 2015 by acidhead

[+DieChecker]

I refer you to Tiggs post as an explanation why the idea that there are jobs available if you have the skills and initiative is just BS.

He says it as best I have read.

There is a knee jerk reaction on the right to assume that its always the individuals fault if they are out of work, but its based on dubious analysis and hatred of those worse off than your self.

Br Cornelius

I never said it was always the individuals fault. I said that the individual is not completely blameless in most situations.

[+DieChecker]

Many do since their company uses their own personal assets as seed capitol, mostly in the form of mortgage extensions. I personally had a fiend who accumulated $40,000 in debt in opening an unsuccessful cafe, it brought down his other successful cafe and left him in significant personal debt. He didn't lose his house though.

Br Cornelius

I did say that any investments are lost, and people often have to start over. I guess it depends on your definition of ruined?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The basic take home message is that minimum wage is an essential tool for ensuring that people who work can live from that work. In a situation where there is an oversupply of labour companies will pay whatever they can get away with with little care for the social consequences of that choice.

The other take home fact is that minimum wage policy has empirically been shown to not significantly effect employment rates.

Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

http://en.wikipedia....te_unemployment

http://www.huffingto..._n_2568203.html

So whats a young person to do, go get a job in a minimum wage job or take a degree and hope that they are one of the lucky ones who don't end up in a minimum wage job because of their efforts ??

Br Cornelius

That is close but does not show that many science degree persons are working at minimum wage. Most of those unemployed, or underemployed, degree'd people are likely the ones I wrote about who have made bad choices. It seems recent graduates might almost fit into what you said, but still not quite.

Also I don't see that "most" jobs require a degree. It appears that about 40% of the population has a degree, and that most of those work at a job that requires a similar level of education. 40% is not "most".

I agree that there are issues, but you've been exaggerating your data to make a point.

[+DieChecker]

hmmm... really huh? Here I notice that the line up is longer for self checkout than the human checkout line.. at least at the grocery store. Perhaps at Home Depot or similar store their purchases are heavier and they dont want to lift the items? Though, you are correct... its rare I see somebody with a buggy full of groceries complete with weighable items... too lazy to figure out how to weigh them I suppose. Ive noticed on more than one occasion, @ the grocery store, where people were standing in line waiting for the self checkout and there were human cashiers available. When Ive seen that I use the human cashier. Its all about speed for me.... efficiency... the less time it takes to pay the better.... this is why I almost always pay with cash.... nothing dries me more crazy than standing at the back of a lineup while everybody ahead is scanning cards or chips and selecting accounts and punching passwords... than waiting for the ok..... Cash is sooo much quicker.

I don't know. It boggles me. I've actually spent brain processing power thinking about this, so it weirds me out that I don't get it.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

That is close but does not show that many science degree persons are working at minimum wage. Most of those unemployed, or underemployed, degree'd people are likely the ones I wrote about who have made bad choices. It seems recent graduates might almost fit into what you said, but still not quite.

Also I don't see that "most" jobs require a degree. It appears that about 40% of the population has a degree, and that most of those work at a job that requires a similar level of education. 40% is not "most".

I agree that there are issues, but you've been exaggerating your data to make a point.

Just BS, very few people actually take those types of degrees because the requirements of employers have changed. There was a time back in the 1970's when having any type of a degree meant that you were guaranteed a job, so people took the luxury of studying what they wanted and were interested in. The skills and proven intellect were the saleable asset. That culture died back in the recessions of the 1980's when colleges were significantly restructured. practically all degrees are no focused on a specific set of saleble employment skills and colleges take great efforts to tailor their programs to turn out exactly what the business world wants. I recently took a degree so can tell you with certainty that this is the reality. Still many do not get the jobs because of oversupply and the "qualification" inflation in a oversupplied market means that a second degree and or 2-5 years of experience are the basic entry requirement for many positions.

The other fact is that an employer which has a choice between a person with a degree and one without a degree is likely to choose the one with the degree because they believe they will be more adaptable and quicker to learn the on job skills, and they know that many degreed people will take anything rather than starve. This has effectively made many jobs which do not specifically require a degree to perform only available to those with degrees - making the degree and unspoken requirement.

I can only assume that you have been out of touch with this area for a long time for you not to understand these basic truths for young people.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 20, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

The basic take home message is that minimum wage is an essential tool for ensuring that people who work can live from that work. In a situation where there is an oversupply of labour companies will pay whatever they can get away with with little care for the social consequences of that choice.

The other take home fact is that minimum wage policy has empirically been shown to not significantly effect employment rates.

Br Cornelius

Then basically aren't you agreeing that companies that pay less, due to a over abundance of employees, are actually viable businesses? They are taking advantage of the employees situations, but the companies are viable, just a tiny bit immoral. But, then aren't most businesses immoral, and basically only self interested?

I don't know about it being empirically shown to not affect unemployment. That is somewhat like the Global Warming trend versus weather discussion. How many years of data do you need to from a proper trend regarding the minimum wage and unemployment? It could be 10 or even 20 years.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Then basically aren't you agreeing that companies that pay less, due to a over abundance of employees, are actually viable businesses? They are taking advantage of the employees situations, but the companies are viable, just a tiny bit immoral. But, then aren't most businesses immoral, and basically only self interested?

I don't know about it being empirically shown to not affect unemployment. That is somewhat like the Global Warming trend versus weather discussion. How many years of data do you need to from a proper trend regarding the minimum wage and unemployment? It could be 10 or even 20 years.

I am not arguing about the morality, I accept that many companies are immoral, what I am saying is that it is the governments duty to legislate against such immorality and that is what they do with the minimum wage laws.

There is plenty of data on this going back for many decades.

Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

Just BS, very few people actually take those types of degrees because the requirements of employers have changed. there was a time back in the 1970's when having any type of a degree meant that you were gyuaranteed a job, sdo people took the luxury of studying what they wanted and were interested in. The skills and proven intellect were the saleable asset. Thats culture died back in the recessions of the 1980's when colleges were significantly restructered. paractically all degrees are no focused on a specific set of saleble employment skills.

The other fact is that an exmployer which has a choice between a person with a degree and one without a degree is likely to choose the one with the degree because they believe they will be more adaptable and quicker to learn the on job skills. this has effectively made many jobs which do not specifically require a degree to perform only available to those with degrees - making the degree and unspoken requirement.

I can only assume that you have been out of touch with this area for a long time for you not to understand these basic truths for young people.

Br Cornelius

I don't see how what you posted contradicts what I wrote.

I agree that there was a time where few went to college and those that did were guaranteed a successful career. But that was before computers and the internet and "just in time" economic models. Things move faster, are more expensive, more risky, and more complex (in general) then things were back then. It used to be that people didn't even need to graduate high school to get a well paying job in a union mill.

That does not show that today many people with science degrees have to work for minimum wage. It also doesn't confirm that most people are required a degree to have a job.

That people will hire a person with a degree for a non-degree'd position doesn't mean a degree is required though. Someone with slightly better experience and no degree, is probably just as likely or more so to get that job. I know that my employer Intel hires mainly based on experience and secondly on education, especially for the lowest rungs.

[+DieChecker]

I am not arguing about the morality, I accept that many companies are immoral, what I am saying is that it is the governments duty to legislate against such immorality and that is what they do with the minimum wage laws.

There is plenty of data on this going back for many decades.

Br Cornelius

Say I agree with you, that still leaves the issue of if unemployment rates would be affected. How do we know a 3 year study, or whatever amount of time, is a reliable data set? Small businesses live and die in single digit year periods, but larger companies usually have lifespans of many decades, and are the employer of most low wage workers.

Ack... It is 2 AM here. I'm going to go to bed before my wife wakes up and chews me out....

[acidhead]

Actually most businesses are corporations, even the tiny ones, and it is the corporation that fails. The owners simply loose the investment they had, not everything. This often does mean loosing a lot, but those people still had been paid, I assume, by their own corporation. And doubtless they have to start over, but usually they don't loose their house, cars and whatnot.

My one man business(me) was a sole proprietorship for ten years before I incorporated it. I don't really earn a whole lot but I like what I do for a job(Hardwood floor installer). And what I do earn is taxed less now then what it was before as a sole proprietor.... 17% flat federal corporate tax rate in Canada. I should of incorporated in my first few years of business but had no idea how it worked. When I finally found out how to incorporate and how to do corporate taxes I couldn't believe how dumb I was to not have incorporated sooner. Oh well... you live and you learn I suppose.

Edited April 20, 2015 by acidhead

[acidhead]

I agree that there was a time where few went to college and those that did were guaranteed a successful career. But that was before computers and the internet and "just in time" economic models. Things move faster, are more expensive, more risky, and more complex (in general) then things were back then. It used to be that people didn't even need to graduate high school to get a well paying job in a union mill.

That does not show that today many people with science degrees have to work for minimum wage. It also doesn't confirm that most people are required a degree to have a job.

That people will hire a person with a degree for a non-degree'd position doesn't mean a degree is required though. Someone with slightly better experience and no degree, is probably just as likely or more so to get that job. I know that my employer Intel hires mainly based on experience and secondly on education, especially for the lowest rungs.

Yep... I moved from a small mill union town 20 years ago. My grand pa worked the mill.... my pa worked at the mill. Many friends I graduated with went straight into the mill to work. Many others moved to go to college or university.... to get those 'degrees'..... lol

Those union mill town jobs have dried up. Half or less then what once was 25-30yrs ago or gone completely . The paper mills, plywood mills and lumber mills. Times change. You either adapt or find yourself in a rut living a life in the past.

Edited April 20, 2015 by acidhead

[Beefers]

"Minimum wage" is a myth anyways in the US, as long as people like waiters make less than "minimum" wage, it's not a minimum wage.

[Tiggs]

I think that is a hypothesis. Can you support that hypothesis with data showing that most jobs are filled by people with jobs?

Sure. The Bureau of Labour Statistics will show you that the number of people who have been unemployed for various timeframes rarely changes.

I think you're going to have to point out where I said "lazy". I said many, if not most, have made bad choices, such as pursuing an unmarketable degree. Or being so specialized in your training and experience that you can't get a job except the one you previously had. If you're a steel worker in a town with no steel mills, you've made a bad decision somewhere, and need to work to fix it. You're either going to need to move, or use your training to do something else, like auto manufacturing.

Bad choices, Lazy. Same difference. Pick a pejorative.

But just for you:

Blaming individuals for not having a job in the US today is like playing musical chairs with 25 people and 24 chairs, and telling the person who didn't get a chair that it's their fault for making bad choices, and if they made good choices, they, too, could have their own chair, just like everyone else.

And then the economy pulls another chair out. And you blame the next person for making bad choices, too.

You don't hire the guy with no experience and a spotty history, and a criminal conviction, if there are other people who don't have those issues. It is regrettable that some people end up basically unemployable, but please don't tell me that they had no hand in their own fate.

How do you get experience and a full employment history if there's not enough jobs for everyone?

Especially if having experience and a full employment history is the best way to get employed?

It's Catch-22.

[Raptor Witness]

I don't know what's worse, the man who fails to pay child support, or corporations who refuse to pay a living wage to people. In one case, the man is sent to jail, while the other is encouraged to withhold money.

Take Walmart for example, for years they've under paid their workers, and the taxpayers have had to pay for food stamps for these low income workers.

I don't know who in the hell came up with that idea being okay, but it's nobody that has any truth in their head. I'm sure many Republicans would say, just don't give them the food stamps. Then at least the crisis would be allowed to come to light. As it stands now, these large corporations are allowed to get away with this. That's the best example of taxation without representation that I can imagine.

I don't understand how a free society can exist, which blatantly allows for gross inflation in certain areas, which have plenty of competition, but which suppress inflation in others, such as worker's wages.

How can the profits of certain industries be all but guaranteed, while the citizens profits cannot? The two should be equal in a free society.

This is why I advocate a jury-style form of chosen representative government. I would rather see that than a regeneration of unions.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Raptor Witness

[Gromdor]

We could always stop giving benefits to anyone who is employed. That would starve them into looking for living wage jobs and force companies that profit from government subsidized labor to change their ways. The down side of course is people would be discouraged from looking for jobs at all. But if we continue going the way we are, then practically everyone who works will also be on welfare anyways.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

There's never a discussion of this type that doesn't deserve sharing this image as a reminder of who was the father of all these bogus neoliberal ideas.

Enjoy.

Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

Yep... I moved from a small mill union town 20 years ago. My grand pa worked the mill.... my pa worked at the mill. Many friends I graduated with went straight into the mill to work. Many others moved to go to college or university.... to get those 'degrees'..... lol

Those union mill town jobs have dried up. Half or less then what once was 25-30yrs ago or gone completely . The paper mills, plywood mills and lumber mills. Times change. You either adapt or find yourself in a rut living a life in the past.

Yeah, when I was going to college in the late '80s, I got a summer job working in a plywood mill... union job, $15 an hour... No degree required. Also that mill is completely gone now, and turned into a mini mall. The US is loosing industry and that is what is hurting the Middle Class more then some supposed "Wealth Inequality". Germany rules Europe now, because it is an industrial exporter. A Service based economy just isn't going to make a lot of low education - high pay jobs.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Germany rules Europe now, because it is an industrial exporter.

Here's a surprise for people, Germany rules the EU because it has a highly managed economy with the Government setting and achieving strategic objectives by managing the industrial base.

Its successful because it is fairly much the opposite of the US and UK approach to how you manage an economy.

The markets will not support a manufacturing industrial base because there are quicker returns in pure market speculation and asset stripping, Government has to intervene in markets to insentivise long term industrial growth - Germany is highly market interventionist. Welcome to social democracy.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

Yeah, when I was going to college in the late '80s, I got a summer job working in a plywood mill... union job, $15 an hour... No degree required. Also that mill is completely gone now, and turned into a mini mall. The US is loosing industry and that is what is hurting the Middle Class more then some supposed "Wealth Inequality". Germany rules Europe now, because it is an industrial exporter. A Service based economy just isn't going to make a lot of low education - high pay jobs.

Exactly. I hate to say it but unions are partially responsible for the softwood industry packing it in or moving to China. Unfortunately the power of unions also became their own demise. Some restructured by moving to more modern automation techniques like Sweden does eliminating most employees or simply cutting back employees all together and those who do work for less wages and wages are stagnant. Guys working in the mill in my home town are still working for wages of the 1980's.

[+DieChecker]

Sure. The Bureau of Labour Statistics will show you that the number of people who have been unemployed for various timeframes rarely changes.

Showing numbers do not change doesn't tell of the undercurrents of those numbers.

Bad choices, Lazy. Same difference. Pick a pejorative.

Except various pejoratives are more acceptable then others. Calling someone lazy is a offensive generalization, and saying that the Masters degree in extinct bear fauna is a generally worthless degree, are two different things. One is offensive to all unemployed who may be actually working hard, and one is specific and honestly critical.

But just for you:

Blaming individuals for not having a job in the US today is like playing musical chairs with 25 people and 24 chairs, and telling the person who didn't get a chair that it's their fault for making bad choices, and if they made good choices, they, too, could have their own chair, just like everyone else.

And then the economy pulls another chair out. And you blame the next person for making bad choices, too.

I'll admit that that is true. Which is why people should make a Good Choice after they suffer a bad choice. Hanging onto the same bad choices is not smart.

True, someone is going to be unemployed. And I've not said we shouldn't help those people. I've said that to make a living wage you need to be trying to improve, and research/train so you limit your bad choices. You make it sound like the creation of a new "chair" is not possible, but it is. I see businesses starting up all the time. Many fail, but while that business are up, the people were making income, yes? The employees of those new businesses didn't loose anything did they?

How do you get experience and a full employment history if there's not enough jobs for everyone?

Especially if having experience and a full employment history is the best way to get employed?

It's Catch-22.

There are numerous ways. Community College probably being the best way. Or trade schools. I have three friends who are all going into Nursing school, who want to get out of the minimum wage racket. All they had to do was Apply, be interviewed to determine if they honestly want to be there, and be on a waiting list. True..... They likely will not be able to work while in those programs, and probably will need state/national assistance, but if in the long run they are making $25 to $40 an hour, and it only took one year of school, then I think the government is doing well with the investment.

Edited April 20, 2015 by DieChecker