Charles Koch, minimum wage and "basic needs"

[SMMcP]

http://money.msn.com/now/post--charles-koch-dollar34000-puts-you-in-the-top-1percent

I have no love for Charles Koch and his ideas. But that aside, the interesting part of the article to me was that the Economic Policy Institute calculates that a family of three needs $45,000/year to "meet basic needs" in Simpson Co., Miss. (the lowest cost of living area in the country).  That figure jumps to $54,000 if the family lives in Wichita, Kansas.  What??
What are your thoughts on this?

[renbutler]

My thoughts are that people here prove that the yearly cost of truly basic needs is really surprisingly low.

[lisahi]

My thought is that the generally accepted "minimum basic needs" in the United States probably includes a basic cable subscription, money for transportation (fuel, bus or taxi money), the ability to dry one's clothes in an electric or gas-powered dryer, the ability to live in sub-80 degree household temperatures, among other things considered here to be un-mustachian.

In other words, the general population is so accustomed to certain conveniences and technological innovations that it is deemed cruel to disallow such items on a list of "basic needs" by calling them luxuries. Certainly there are plenty of people who live without one or more of these conveniences--even those who do not know what a "mustachian lifestyle" is all about. People who line-dry clothes because they can't afford to by a dryer, or pick up over-the-air broadcast signals because they can't spend the money to get cable, or have no air conditioning in their homes because it would be too expensive to install. But when folks who make these sort of calculations do so, it is generally without regard to those who cannot afford such items, even if they wanted to buy them. There is also no consideration for those who actually choose not to have them.

[oldtoyota]

http://money.msn.com/now/post--charles-koch-dollar34000-puts-you-in-the-top-1percent

I have no love for Charles Koch and his ideas. But that aside, the interesting part of the article to me was that the Economic Policy Institute calculates that a family of three needs $45,000/year to "meet basic needs" in Simpson Co., Miss. (the lowest cost of living area in the country).  That figure jumps to $54,000 if the family lives in Wichita, Kansas.  What??
What are your thoughts on this?

I am suspicious of anything said by a Koch brother. I think one can live on less, but he certainly has not. And what if others--besides just him and his brother--want to buy politicians? That costs more. Seems to me like he's making a case for doing away with min wage and for the sake of what? His companies? His profits? Doesn't he have enough yet to leave other people alone?

[renbutler]

I am suspicious of anything said by a Koch brother. I think one can live on less, but he certainly has not. And what if others--besides just him and his brother--want to buy politicians? That costs more. Seems to me like he's making a case for doing away with min wage and for the sake of what? His companies? His profits? Doesn't he have enough yet to leave other people alone?

So, how much time must one be poor to have an opinion on the minimum wage? How much money do you and I need to amass to have to shut up about the topic?

[Joet]

there's always an ulterior motive for the Koch brothers, are they trying to slam through minimum if not sub-minimum wage jobs or further reduce compensation in their lines of business?

[renbutler]

I have no dog in the pro/anti Koch fight. But there is strong theoretical evidence that a high minimum wage hurts pretty much everybody. Businesses have to choose whether to hire fewer people, or simply raise costs for the consumer. If anybody is looking at the minimum wage as a good way to redistribute money from corporations to the poor, they should probably look at other methods.

BTW, only a very small fraction (about 5%) of workers in the US make minimum wage, and many of them are teenagers who aren't supporting a family.

[dcheesi]

I ran the calculator, and it's definitely making some generous assumptions. Eg. transportation expense is $600 per month; I'm guessing they're including a car payment in there?

[Khan]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/why-does-the-minimum-wage-have-no-discernible-effect-on-employment
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/08/156458470/raising-minimum-wage-a-help-or-harm

And, here's an excellent Intelligence Squared debate on the subject which is enlightening on both sides of the issue.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/853-abolish-the-minimum-wage

I think we should just get rid of everything and make a negative income tax. You can satisfy those that want slave labor, while not actually having slaves. And any work done is still a positive for the performers of said work above and beyond the minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

[Marmot]

I ran the calculator, and it's definitely making some generous assumptions. Eg. transportation expense is $600 per month; I'm guessing they're including a car payment in there?

Technical document that outlines their assumptions: http://www.epi.org/publication/wp297-2013-family-budget-calculator-technical-documentation/   

"Since the costs of raw, unprepared foods vary relatively little over geographic areas and the data present only nationally representative costs of raw, unprepared foods, our calculations for costs of food vary only by the size of the family and not by geographical area."

Child care expenses for a family with one child assume that that child is in fulltime daycare always and does not eventually go to public school; state averages are used.

Just an example.

[hybrid]

I have no dog in the pro/anti Koch fight. But there is strong theoretical evidence that a high minimum wage hurts pretty much everybody. Businesses have to choose whether to hire fewer people, or simply raise costs for the consumer. If anybody is looking at the minimum wage as a good way to redistribute money from corporations to the poor, they should probably look at other methods.

BTW, only a very small fraction (about 5%) of workers in the US make minimum wage, and many of them are teenagers who aren't supporting a family.

This is a commonly held belief in the conservative community, certainly not the first time I've read this.  But it assumes that if a company is forced to incur higher costs of any kind they won't look for offsets or efficiencies and will immediately raise prices.  Companies do have competitors after all, they charge as much as the market will bear.  This is akin to the argument that went along the lines of "If you raise gas taxes, it will destroy the economy" when liberals were floating those ideas in the mid-2000s.  Of course, gas prices went much higher than the proposed gas taxes through normal supply and demand channels, and the economy didn't immediately go into the tank.  Higher wages do produce higher priced goods, but I think it's a bit more complicated than every extra dollar of compensation is reflected in the price of a good.

At the very least I don't hear that same argument when executive pay is discussed....

The biggest problem with the argument above is that if only 5% of the workforce makes minimum wage, then a raise in the minimum wage does not affect 95% of the workforce, therefore very few costs would be passed a long in the first place.  Unless of course a good deal of the workforce is making just barely more than the minimum wage, which undermines the 5% argument in the first place.  There ain't a lot of difference between 7.25 and 7.50 an hour in real dollars, just $20 gross for an 80 week check.

As for the teenagers argument, it doesn't matter if you are a teen or 35, work is work.  I don't support the notion of paying teens less because they supposedly need the money less.

[renbutler]

This is a commonly held belief in the conservative community, certainly not the first time I've read this.  But it assumes that if a company is forced to incur higher costs of any kind they won't look for offsets or efficiencies and will immediately raise prices.  ...  Higher wages do produce higher priced goods, but I think it's a bit more complicated than every extra dollar of compensation is reflected in the price of a good.

I never said the increase was dollar for dollar. But some sort of change must be made to compensate for the higher cost of labor. And because these are businesses, and not charities, asking them to simply reduce profit margins (often in cutthroat industries with already razor-thin margins like food service) isn't as easy as some might suggest.

At the very least I don't hear that same argument when executive pay is discussed....

If a company wants to stupidly give away millions of dollars to CEOs, that's their choice. And it's our choice whether to support those companies.

But that has nothing to do with federally mandated wages.

The biggest problem with the argument above is that if only 5% of the workforce makes minimum wage, then a raise in the minimum wage does not affect 95% of the workforce, therefore very few costs would be passed a long in the first place.  Unless of course a good deal of the workforce is making just barely more than the minimum wage, which undermines the 5% argument in the first place.  There ain't a lot of difference between 7.25 and 7.50 an hour in real dollars, just $20 gross for an 80 week check.

A raise in the minimum wage affects EVERYBODY, as I already pointed out. The industries paying minimum wage will likely see increases in the price of what they sell, which affects all consumers.

Also, if the minimum wage rises, labor costs for industries that would like to be able to BEAT minimum wage to attract better workers will also have to raise wages. I've also heard that union pay scales are often based on 1xx% (whatever percentage above) minimum wage too. So the price of virtually everything will increase if minimum wages rise. It's not much good to make more money if you are forced to give it right back if you want to buy anything.

Anyway, the point about the 5% was that even though we have a minimum wage, the vast majority of companies pay more than that already, in order to compete for competent workers. The people making minimum wage are mostly doing unskilled labor or working part time by choice. I would encourage those people to expand their abilities or start working full-time jobs if they want to make more money.

As for the teenagers argument, it doesn't matter if you are a teen or 35, work is work.  I don't support the notion of paying teens less because they supposedly need the money less.

But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether a full-time minimum-wage job could support a household. So, yes, it does matter, for the sake of this discussion, whether the earner is running a household or is simply trying to earn some money for school or personal use.

[oldtoyota]

I have no dog in the pro/anti Koch fight. But there is strong theoretical evidence that a high minimum wage hurts pretty much everybody. Businesses have to choose whether to hire fewer people, or simply raise costs for the consumer.

There are more than two choices. They could cut executive pay. They could have more workers work from home and pay less in real estate. I can think of at least dozens of ways to save money that do not involve increasing prices for the consumer.

[Albert]

There are more than two choices. They could cut executive pay. They could have more workers work from home and pay less in real estate. I can think of at least dozens of ways to save money that do not involve increasing prices for the consumer.

You mean they could cut their own pay? That will be a plan Z in most cases.

[matchewed]

Look I'm sorry but minimum wage can't both only affect 5% of the people in the United States and be devastating to consumers and employment at the same time.

How do those two opposing points actually gel together? If it only affects 5% of jobs why does it affect all employment or prices?

[renbutler]

I have no dog in the pro/anti Koch fight. But there is strong theoretical evidence that a high minimum wage hurts pretty much everybody. Businesses have to choose whether to hire fewer people, or simply raise costs for the consumer.

There are more than two choices. They could cut executive pay. They could have more workers work from home and pay less in real estate. I can think of at least dozens of ways to save money that do not involve increasing prices for the consumer.

Executive pay? Work from home?

More often than not we're talking about somebody who owns a couple food service franchises.

[oldtoyota]

There are more than two choices. They could cut executive pay. They could have more workers work from home and pay less in real estate. I can think of at least dozens of ways to save money that do not involve increasing prices for the consumer.

You mean they could cut their own pay? That will be a plan Z in most cases.

That is an intended part of my point. Yes. Technically, they could. They rarely do. However, there are still more than two choices. Whether the executives decide to utilize all of the choices at their control is up to them.

[renbutler]

Look I'm sorry but minimum wage can't both only affect 5% of the people in the United States and be devastating to consumers and employment at the same time.

How do those two opposing points actually gel together? If it only affects 5% of jobs why does it affect all employment or prices?

Already explained.

Very few are actually making minimum wage. Most of them don't have only the one job or support households on their own.

If wages increase for those few, they will also likely increase for those making more than minimum wage.

Most of that increased income will be spent on higher prices for the things they buy anyway.

Pretty simple.

BTW, I never used the word "devastating." That's not really the point I was conveying.

[Albert]

The minimum wage in Australia is almost 16 $/hour (highest in the world). As far as I know their economy works just fine.

[matchewed]

Look I'm sorry but minimum wage can't both only affect 5% of the people in the United States and be devastating to consumers and employment at the same time.

How do those two opposing points actually gel together? If it only affects 5% of jobs why does it affect all employment or prices?

Already explained.

Very few are actually making minimum wage. Most of them don't have only the one job or support households on their own.

If wages increase for those few, they will also likely increase for those making more than minimum wage.

Most of that increased income will be spent on higher prices for the things they buy anyway.

Pretty simple.

BTW, I never used the word "devastating." That's not really the point I was conveying.

Why would everyone's wage have to increase if minimum wage were to increase?

[renbutler]

The minimum wage in Australia is almost 16 $/hour (highest in the world). As far as I know their economy works just fine.

If the argument were that economies would collapse with a high minimum wage, that might be a more useful response, IMO.

[renbutler]

Why would everyone's wage have to increase if minimum wage were to increase?

I didn't say "everyone."

But see Reply #11, third section for a response about why many wages would have to increase.

Also, if the minimum wage rises, labor costs for industries that would like to be able to BEAT minimum wage to attract better workers will also have to raise wages. I've also heard that union pay scales are often based on 1xx% (whatever percentage above) minimum wage too. So the price of virtually everything will increase if minimum wages rise. It's not much good to make more money if you are forced to give it right back if you want to buy anything.

[Albert]

If the argument were that economies would collapse with a high minimum wage, that might be a more useful response, IMO.

So what is the argument for not raising a minimum wage by a dollar or two? I don't see a compelling one, at least not for a moderate rise.

[renbutler]

If the argument were that economies would collapse with a high minimum wage, that might be a more useful response, IMO.

So what is the argument for not raising a minimum wage by a dollar or two? I don't see a compelling one, at least not for a moderate rise.

Well, when you say "a dollar or two," it doesn't sound like much. But if you said the identical "14 to 28%," then it starts to sound like pretty big bucks over the course of a year for multiple employees.

Anyway, higher minimum wage makes it harder for non-wealthy small business owners to compete in cutthroat industries that rely on affordable labor, and it increases inflation.

Those are pretty compelling to me.

That said, I fully encourage hard workers who have people depending on them to improve their experience and skills and offer their services to employers who pay them what their skills are worth.

[matchewed]

So what's the argument then? What's the downside? You keep putting it in this binary system of "cost of goods and services would go up" or "employment would go down". There are other options and is that a "bad" thing? We live in a world of excess and cheap goods and services, most of the things Americans buy are subsidized anyway, so why is a minimum wage increase bad?

Why would everyone's wage have to increase if minimum wage were to increase?

I didn't say "everyone."

But see Reply #11, third section for a response about why many wages would have to increase.

Oh I read it. I just haven't seen much in the way of backing up your reasoning with anything substantial. Maybe some studies, maybe evaluate what happened the last time the minimum wage increased.

[renbutler]

I've already answered those questions.

If you continue to disagree, it doesn't bother me a bit. But don't suggest that I don't have actual, real-world downsides that can be legitimately troublesome to some of us.

Maybe some studies, maybe evaluate what happened the last time the minimum wage increased.

BTW, all you have to do is search for "negative effects of higher minimum wage," and a slew of information appears. They're not my studies, and there are a lot of them, so I'm not going to repeat all the information here.

I'm sure a slew of information also appears if you change negative to positive. So one must obviously weigh all the positives and negatives before arriving at a reasonable conclusion.

[oldtoyota]

I am suspicious of anything said by a Koch brother. I think one can live on less, but he certainly has not. And what if others--besides just him and his brother--want to buy politicians? That costs more. Seems to me like he's making a case for doing away with min wage and for the sake of what? His companies? His profits? Doesn't he have enough yet to leave other people alone?

So, how much time must one be poor to have an opinion on the minimum wage? How much money do you and I need to amass to have to shut up about the topic?

I'm not running ads on the subject to try to persuade people to agree with me.

If Koch thinks $7.25/hr is so great, then he should go be the one to make that much.

Koch says there will be a "culture of dependency" if we don't change many things, including min wage. If only 5% are earning min wage, then how is a "culture of dependency" being formed?

Sounds like he's speaking The Spin Speak.

(This is why we need education! And taxes to pay for education and critical thinking.)

I think this is my favorite part of the article...when Koch quotes a report to support his points and the report is from an organizations he funds! Awesome.

I am going to make up all kinds of stuff and then quote my own "reports" to prove them. Hold on, people!

"In Koch's view, these factors put the hurt on "economic freedom." His ad cites a report from the Koch-funded Fraser Institute showing that the "United States used to be a world leader in economic freedom but our ranking fell. And it's projected to decline even further."

OMG. A Koch brother says our ranking fell. We'd better cut min wage to fix that. I'm glad Mr. Koch has laid this out so clearly for my little brain.

[matchewed]

Or we can go to a simple search - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Look at the empirical studies section. That way we don't have to just stare at self affirming pro/con lists.

Go ahead and read through that. Then please find studies which support your argument or all you're doing is shouting into the air. In which case this is a seriously valueless discussion.

[renbutler]

I'm not running ads on the subject to try to persuade people to agree with me. I don't get what motivates the Kochs to care about this topic beyond their own greed. If I am missing something, enlighten me.

Ah, "greed," perhaps the most overused insult of the last five years. And almost always applied solely to those with different socio-political views.

It doesn't really matter to me why they care, any more than it matters to me why you care. Nor should it matter why I care any more or less than why they care.

[oldtoyota]

Or we can go to a simple search - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Look at the empirical studies section. That way we don't have to just stare at self affirming pro/con lists.

Go ahead and read through that. Then please find studies which support your argument or all you're doing is shouting into the air. In which case this is a seriously valueless discussion.

Agreed. I smell a Koch intern/apologist.

[renbutler]

Or we can go to a simple search - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Look at the empirical studies section. That way we don't have to just stare at self affirming pro/con lists.

Go ahead and read through that. Then please find studies which support your argument or all you're doing is shouting into the air. In which case this is a seriously valueless discussion.

I'm not really that interested in a "oh yeah, well look at this study" kind of argument. I'm sure both sides would be well armed, and nobody would come away with a changed mind.

I've been around that block many times before.

Bottom line, based on what I've seen, simply raising the minimum wage doesn't do much to reduce poverty, and in fact many positive effects of the increase are negated by other effects.

But if people in a certain locality support an increase, by all means they should increase their minimum wage.

[matchewed]

You're not interested in a reasoned debate backed up by data and studies.

Fair enough I think I'm done here. Enjoy your day ren.

[renbutler]

Agreed. I smell a Koch intern/apologist.

Well then, perhaps you should just ignore everything I have to say. It would probably be a better use of your time.

For the rest of you, I really don't know much about the Kochs, other than they are becoming a frequently used bogeyman in certain circles. I'm not interested in them, pro nor con. I try to focus on bigger issues than political tit-for-tat.

[renbutler]

You're not interested in a reasoned debate backed up by data and studies

Sometimes I think this place is mostly free of good old reliable silly Internet schtick, but then posts like this are a sad reminder. Honestly, it seems almost like you're either new to this Internet discussion thing, or you've embraced the unfortunately ugly and unproductive nature of it.

:D

I would be interested in knowing why only one side is being asked for "data and studies," then is criticized for actually showed how a slew of them can be found. And the opposing argument is basically nothing more than "the Koch brothers suck."

But I suspect that the answer is Good Old Internet. LOL

[hybrid]

You're not interested in a reasoned debate backed up by data and studies.

Fair enough I think I'm done here. Enjoy your day ren.

I don't agree with renbutler's points, but that charge seems wholly unfair.  There are lots of studies pro and con about the minimum wage, and its a very old and long argument with proponents on both sides.

[hybrid]

And before you start feeling like you found your first ally today renbutler.....  ;-)

Ahhhhhh, conservatives.  Always looking through the prism of the individual.  You are absolutely right renbutler, if it were me making 7.25 an hour I would look to improve my skill set.  No arguments there.  But the 7.25 an hour job will still be there to be filled by whoever is at the bottom of the totem pole.   So while one of the things that makes America great is that any individual can rise as high as his skills and fortune can take him, the same does not hold true for the population at large.  There will always be low skilled jobs that have to be filled regardless of the skill set of the populace that fills them.  The only question then is do we have a minimum wage at all, and if so where we set that level.  Obviously we can't have a minimum wage of $20 an hour.  But it seems just as obvious to me that we can't have it at $1 an hour either.

The real question to me is where do we draw the line, and how to adjust the line going forward.  Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation we have the same old arguments, liberals pushing for higher wages and conservatives consistently resisting them.  If conservatives don't want to appear like heartless bastards going forward, nixing each and every attempt at raising the wages of the poorest among us, they should simply index the minimum wage to inflation and take the argument off the table.  And then ask liberals why it is OK to drill the hell out of the lower 48 for oil but not in the ANWR (one of my favorite losing arguments for liberals).  American capitalism produces great wealth, and the middle and lower classes are seeing less of it over time.  Conservatives can continue to ignore that reality at their own peril.

[renbutler]

I don't agree with renbutler's points, but that charge seems wholly unfair.  There are lots of studies pro and con about the minimum wage, and its a very old and long argument with proponents on both sides.

Thanks.

This is definitely one of those topics where reasonable people can have widely differing but still reasonable opinions.

Only unreasonable people will think that the topic is a no-brainer, and that there aren't any valid opposing views.

[renbutler]

If conservatives don't want to appear like heartless bastards going forward, nixing each and every attempt at raising the wages of the poorest among us, they should simply index the minimum wage to inflation and take the argument off the table.

First, it would be great if reason were held up much higher than appearances.

Second, I would generally agree with indexing to inflation -- if we could first agree where it should start. If $7.25 were too high (or low) to begin with, indexing to inflation would ensure that an unjust minimum wage would be set in stone.

But I would also prefer that it be set on a state or local level. A federal minimum wage becomes unwieldy because of the wide disparity between the cost of labor and the cost of living around the country. Government almost always (not always) works better when it is nimble and focused.

[hybrid]

If conservatives don't want to appear like heartless bastards going forward, nixing each and every attempt at raising the wages of the poorest among us, they should simply index the minimum wage to inflation and take the argument off the table.

First, it would be great if reason were held up much higher than appearances.

Second, I would generally agree with indexing to inflation -- if we could first agree where it should start. If $7.25 were too high (or low) to begin with, indexing to inflation would ensure that an unjust minimum wage would be set in stone.

But I would also prefer that it be set on a state or local level. A federal minimum wage becomes unwieldy because of the wide disparity between the cost of labor and the cost of living around the country. Government almost always (not always) works better when it is nimble and focused.

I'm all for simplification where practical, and you and I will agree on much there.  But having 50 separate legislatures wrangle with 50 separate minimum wages seems to be a waste of precious legislative time and resources.  Some regions are more expensive than others, it's true, but I doubt the disparity makes up for the complexity.  Sometimes one law is better than 50.

[Marmot]

I'm all for simplification where practical, and you and I will agree on much there.  But having 50 separate legislatures wrangle with 50 separate minimum wages seems to be a waste of precious legislative time and resources.  Some regions are more expensive than others, it's true, but I doubt the disparity makes up for the complexity.  Sometimes one law is better than 50.

I agree that it should be administered at the federal level, though I do think there should be a cost of living adjustment though as renbutler stated. IE there could be a national amount, and then a modifier applied to that amount (ie NYC metro area could be national amount * 1.2; one of the cheaper cost of living areas could be national rate * 0.8).

[BYUvol]

But I suspect that the answer is Good Old Internet. LOL

Seems like a nice strawman/bogeyman there. I happen to agree with some of the stances you have made in this forum(myself being a libertarian), but without willing to defend your stances with reason, your comments do little to promote your ideas.

[matchewed]

You're not interested in a reasoned debate backed up by data and studies.

Fair enough I think I'm done here. Enjoy your day ren.

I don't agree with renbutler's points, but that charge seems wholly unfair.  There are lots of studies pro and con about the minimum wage, and its a very old and long argument with proponents on both sides.

How is what I said unfair? I asked to see studies backing it up, I provided mine, ren refused to provide his. What is unfair about what I said?

[marty998]

The minimum wage in Australia is almost 16 $/hour (highest in the world). As far as I know their economy works just fine.

Our society is better off for it.

Having to scrounge for tips and the like because you work 40 hours for $7.25 an hour sounds like an injustice deliberately perpetrated by people who have the means and authority to change it.

What sets us apart as 1st world countries is that we have the capacity to ensure a decent minimum wage. If your country does not have a reasonable minimum wage or employment laws that offer protections to workers then that sounds to me like exploitation.

We like to think of ourselves as 1st world but if full time workers cannot afford a reasonable standard of living then IMO society is regressing further back than the developing world.

Talk of "there will always be very low paid jobs that need to be filled" and that "high minimum wages hurt the poor" is the usual bunkum spouted by neo cons.

What use is profit if the society you inhabit becomes a shithole, with workers unable to afford a roof over their heads.

***sorry if this sounds like a rant, I tend to get pissed off by "think tanks" spouting partisan research peddling support for their ideological views. The dumb masses out there have a nasty habit of believing this rubbish because it has the look and feel of something authoritative.

[oldtoyota]

I'm not running ads on the subject to try to persuade people to agree with me. I don't get what motivates the Kochs to care about this topic beyond their own greed. If I am missing something, enlighten me.

Ah, "greed," perhaps the most overused insult of the last five years. And almost always applied solely to those with different socio-political views.

It doesn't really matter to me why they care, any more than it matters to me why you care. Nor should it matter why I care any more or less than why they care.

Perhaps, it is "overused" for a reason. If a person wants to reduce the min wage to increase profits when already a millionaire or billionaire, I find it greedy. Yes.

It does matter to me why they care. The Koch Bros and their think tanks have an agenda that does not jive with what the majority wants. I would not like it if George Soros had ads asking to remove the min wage either.

[Honest Abe]

If they abandoned the minimum wage I don't think it'd make a difference. Ask anyone who works in a supermarket, those places pay a bit over minimum and they have constant turnover and can't attract enough "good" employees to keep management happy for long. If the wage was lower its be even worse.

The "debate" over eliminating minimum wage is entirely ideological, and Koch being a hard line free market guy believes it shouldn't exist. Fine. But minimum wage today is already so low that it doesn't attract a reliable workforce, so this seems like a waste of our lives to get exercised about the possibility.

[renbutler]

I'm all for simplification where practical, and you and I will agree on much there.  But having 50 separate legislatures wrangle with 50 separate minimum wages seems to be a waste of precious legislative time and resources.  Some regions are more expensive than others, it's true, but I doubt the disparity makes up for the complexity.  Sometimes one law is better than 50.

Actually, many states have their own minimum wages already. The only stipulation is that they cannot be lower than the federal wage.

So state legislatures (and even some cities, I believe) have already addressed the issue in one way or another.

[renbutler]

How is what I said unfair? I asked to see studies backing it up, I provided mine, ren refused to provide his. What is unfair about what I said?

I'm not sure I saw your studies, but I gave you the exact search terms to use. I'd be saving only one click and wasting a bunch of time linking them all myself.

Anyway, my goal here wasn't to change anybody's mind. And if anybody else's goal was to change mine, it would have been a similarly pointless effort. I know how these things work on the Internet. Everybody is armed with their own evidence, and nothing good is ever accomplished.

I simply pointed out that simply raising the minimum wage isn't the no-brainer, slam dunk of a policy that some think it is. With the benefits come serious issues to think about. And reasonable people can reach different but equally reasonable conclusions.

To deny that is to simply deny reality, and to play a very tired game of polemics.

[renbutler]

Seems like a nice strawman/bogeyman there. I happen to agree with some of the stances you have made in this forum(myself being a libertarian), but without willing to defend your stances with reason, your comments do little to promote your ideas.

But it's not my goal to promote an idea -- it's just to confirm (a possibly obvious point) that not everybody is in agreement. I seriously doubt that anybody here hasn't made up their mind on the issue, so the game of "oh yeah, well look at THIS study that makes yours look stupid" isn't really appealing to me. I've been a part of far too many of those things in the past, and the only end result is angry people.

[renbutler]

We like to think of ourselves as 1st world but if full time workers cannot afford a reasonable standard of living then IMO society is regressing further back than the developing world.

I think this web site proves that "a reasonable standard of living" is well within the reach of pretty much any full-time minimum-wage worker.

The dumb masses out there have a nasty habit of believing this rubbish because it has the look and feel of something authoritative.

Actually, I think that pretty much every ideological bloc does its share of trying to sell rubbish to the "dumb masses." Certainly you wouldn't disagree with that, would you?

[oldtoyota]

The "debate" over eliminating minimum wage is entirely ideological, and Koch being a hard line free market guy believes it shouldn't exist. Fine. But minimum wage today is already so low that it doesn't attract a reliable workforce, so this seems like a waste of our lives to get exercised about the possibility.

That is a good point. I'm curious, though, why Koch wants to make it happen. What would a lower min wage really *do* given that not that many actually earn the min wage?