[+Donny]

It seems to me that you are saying exactly what I said you are saying.

No, it is only part of my argument. I am saying that all three of the points are true, and therefore the minimum wage laws seems to hurts who it intends to help. It is not as simple as some generic "minimum wage laws lower employment rates" argument. That was my only point.

1) True
2) Yes.
3) You've offered no support for that.

You seem to keep arguing "they will hire A rather than B". OK, let's see what that means.

Was A employed before?
If "no" then you've given a job opportunity to the jobless. That's useful.
If "yes" the "OK, who's doing that job now".

If the number of jobs is fixed (you argued that your case was not built around unemployment rates), then you can't argue that minimum wages cost jobs... and I don't really care which person gets a given job... they are all just "people".

No, I am not arguing in a hypothetical situation where a nation does not have min. wage laws, and then instates them, resulting in job loss. I believe that would probably happen, but I never argued from such a hypothetical situation.

What I am saying is that if a nation has min. wage laws, then a certain class of citizens will not be employed because companies will not pay them the min. wage to do a job that is not worth the min. wage, whereas if said nation did not have min. wage laws, said citizens would be able to sell their services as an appropriate price, and thus find employment.

Allow me to reverse the example. Let's say the government sees that companies that sell product A are doing poorly, so it raises the market price of their product to an artificially high level, above that which the market dictate. At the same time, there are companies offering a better product with the same function (or perhaps a product that does the same function, in addition to others; either will do). Before, these companies sold their product (product B) at a higher price than product A, but now, because of the raised prices, product A is the same price as product B. What will happen?
While there will surely be exceptions, overall, the companies selling product A will do very, very poorly. Yes, some people will continue buying product A, for whatever reason. Maybe in some isolated cases, product A is the only one available. Maybe they have allegiance to the companies that sell product A. Or maybe said companies set up a black market to sell product A cheaper. Regardless, the action certainly does not help the companies that sell product A.

Now, why is it any different in the case of min. wage laws? Yes, there are exceptions. There is a black market for labor below the min. wage laws. There are people who hire people that aren't worth the min. wage out of kindness, or for other reasons. There are people who such people because there aren't any other options. Fine, in such isolated cases, the min. wage law helps. However, for the vast majority of people, they are not forced to compete at a higher level where, because their labor is less valued, they are bound to do poorly. It's like throwing a collegiate football team into the NFL. They may win a game or two once in a while, but overall they will get hammered.

[JerryLove]

What I am saying is that if a nation has min. wage laws, then a certain class of citizens will not be employed because companies will not pay them the min. wage to do a job that is not worth the min. wage, whereas if said nation did not have min. wage laws, said citizens would be able to sell their services as an appropriate price, and thus find employment.

Then how will the job get done?

Allow me to reverse the example. Let's say the government sees that companies that sell product A are doing poorly, so it raises the market price of their product to an artificially high level, above that which the market dictate.

That's already done. It's done with gas, and cigarettes, and alcholol, and foodstuffs.

At the same time, there are companies offering a better product with the same function (or perhaps a product that does the same function, in addition to others; either will do). Before, these companies sold their product (product B) at a higher price than product A, but now, because of the raised prices, product A is the same price as product B. What will happen?

One would hope the company with the better product at the same price sells it. What's your point?

Fine, in such isolated cases, the min. wage law helps. However, for the vast majority of people, they are not forced to compete at a higher level where, because their labor is less valued, they are bound to do poorly.

It is fallacious to assert that the competition will change.

You have two unemployed people. One is better siuted to a job than another. You have a job. The better suited one will get hired.

You put minimum wage in, or take minimum wage out, it makes no difference. The only potential difference is to remove pay as a factor in the employee choosing which position is most desireable in the lowest end of the job market (perhaps more will work as casheers than stock-boys because they pay is now the same).

You've not reduced the number of employed people. You've stopped the employed people below living wage from being below living wage. You keep asserting some hypothetical shuffeling of which SSNs are going to be on the unemployment list; but I really don't care.

X% unemployment is X% unemployment, minimum wage is minumum wage, and average wage is average wage. You have to show a negative effect on one of these, which is of mroe relevence than the positive effect on the others.

Again, Donny, the "no minimum wage" has been tried in America. Look it up (shantytowns).

It's tried in many other places right now... see how their working populations are doing (google "sweatshops" and "child labor mills").

[+Donny]

I don't understand why you are assuming that the number of jobs will remain the same. If the natural price for a certain service sold by a certain person is $3/hr, and the minimum wage is $6/hr, then few companies will hire that person because it's just not worth it.

If I am remembering my economics course correctly, this would create a market surplus. Because certain people cannot sell their services at their natural price, they are forced up into a higher market, where there is now a surplus of labor. Naturally, if there is a surplus, price goes down, but since it can't, what happens? People remain unemployed. The market can't supply for this surplus because, at that market level, there simply aren't enough jobs. So, the people that would have had jobs in a free market at a lower wage are now just plain out of jobs and become the costs of having an artificially created surplus. It's the unavoidable effect of raising price above the market equilibrium.

Now, you seem to be asking what happens to the jobs that they would have had? Well, they are gone. Maybe they are absorbed into other employee's workloads. Maybe they are remade into fewer, more taxing jobs. Maybe companies go out of business. I don't know, but they cannot exist in the same number as they did before from the simple fact that the price has changed.

[adamwagg]

I agree with Jerry on the minimum wage. People should be paid a livable wage. There is no point in having people work hard at a job that can not support a reasonable standard of living.

Originally Posted by +Donny

I don't understand why you are assuming that the number of jobs will remain the same. If the natural price for a certain service sold by a certain person is $3/hr, and the minimum wage is $6/hr, then few companies will hire that person because it's just not worth it.

But if the company must have its floors cleaned then they will have to pay someone $6/hr or they will have dirty floors. In this case it is worth it, because that is the cheapest they can pay in this situation.

Even if the unemployment rate goes up a little, what you end up with is more people who can actually survive with what they earn, and then the government and the church can help support the unemployment until they are able to get a job.

[grand_master_d]

The majority of people that are positively affected by raising minimum wage are teenagers living with thier parents. Low income families that are effected positively are a minority in this situation.

[+Donny]

But if the company must have its floors cleaned then they will have to pay someone $6/hr or they will have dirty floors. In this case it is worth it, because that is the cheapest they can pay in this situation.

Businesses do not work that way. They just hire the cheapest they can get for a given task. If floor cleaning isn't worth $6/hr, then they will find some other way of getting it done, by, perhaps, hiring a higher quality floor cleaner, or hiring someone that can not only floor clean, but do something else. if they can get more than just floor cleaning for $6/hr, why wouldn't they?

Even if the unemployment rate goes up a little, what you end up with is more people who can actually survive with what they earn, and then the government and the church can help support the unemployment until they are able to get a job.

Yes, you are claiming that, but you didn't address my argument from the simple logic of economics.

[s0233425]

I don't agree with the argument that it'll cause more unemployment. Look at Britian, we have the lowest unemployment rates ever, yet we have the highest minimum wage rate ever, equivalent to $9 an hour as I already said. Can you provide hard facts and figures which show that when a country introduces a minimum wage, unemployment goes up?

[+Donny]

That isn't my argument, exactly. I am saying, everything else remaining the same, employment among those who would normally sell their labor at a lower rate than the minimum wage will go up. The basis for this argument lies in economics, not historical example, so appealing to Britain doesn't prove anything, as you can't really prove that all things remaining the same, Britain wouldn't have a lower unemployment if minimum wage laws were removed.

Furthermore, I'm sure we would have to look into how exactly we define unemployment. People would be able to get jobs easier at younger ages without a minimum wage (and if you counter this with an appeal to sweatshops, then you are missing the point).

[JerryLove]

I don't understand why you are assuming that the number of jobs will remain the same.

Because the number of things needing to be done will remain the same. Companies hire because they see benifit / need.

If the natural price for a certain service sold by a certain person is $3/hr, and the minimum wage is $6/hr, then few companies will hire that person because it's just not worth it.

If there is a job that needs a body, there will be a hire. If there is not, there will not.

Agian, I would refer you to actual history, and the fact that the introduction of minimum wage did not result in a sharp rise in unemployment.

If I am remembering my economics course correctly, this would create a market surplus. Because certain people cannot sell their services at their natural price, they are forced up into a higher market, where there is now a surplus of labor.

There was no minimum wage. Then there was. What you predict didn't happen. You can wax apologetic on it all you want, but when we actually did it that didn't happen.

Now, you seem to be asking what happens to the jobs that they would have had? Well, they are gone. Maybe they are absorbed into other employee's workloads. Maybe they are remade into fewer, more taxing jobs.

You think that copanies do not already do that? Why do you think there are overtime laws?

Maybe companies go out of business. I don't know, but they cannot exist in the same number as they did before from the simple fact that the price has changed.

I give in Donny. You are right. An economy cannot function with a minimum wage. That's why America has not survived the introduction of a minimum wage in the 40s.

[+Donny]

Because the number of things needing to be done will remain the same. Companies hire because they see benifit / need.

What do you mean "needing to be done"? Businesses hire and fire people for a lot of reasons, one of which is the cost of labor. They don't just have a set amount of people to hire and then go out and check the costs; rather, part of the influence on the number of people they hire will be the price of labor.
Furthermore, it is not as simple as "needing to be done" in the sense that businesses will only hire people if it's worth it. There are no jobs that "need to be done" in the sense that there is no limit to how much the company will spend.

If there is a job that needs a body, there will be a hire. If there is not, there will not.

Agian, I would refer you to actual history, and the fact that the introduction of minimum wage did not result in a sharp rise in unemployment.

Again, for that to apply to my argument (which is abstract/logical and not historical), you would have to show that all things remained the same. There could have been something else that caused unemployment to not rise.
Furthermore, I am not arguing that min. wage laws will cause a "sharp rise in unemployment". I am claiming they will cause a "sharp rise in unemployment" among a specific class of citizens, some of whom may not even be factored into the unemployment number when min. wage laws are enacted (for example, younger workers that would normally just be entering the workforce). There are too many factors to argue from a few examples in history to a universal rule like that. In science, for experiments to prove anything, they have to be in a controlled environment. History is clearly not a controlled environment.

There was no minimum wage. Then there was. What you predict didn't happen. You can wax apologetic on it all you want, but when we actually did it that didn't happen.

See above. And you are still ignoring my argument. It's basic economic logic and you aren't even addressing it.

You think that copanies do not already do that? Why do you think there are overtime laws?

Of course they already do it. What's your point? You asked where the jobs would go; I threw out a few possibilities.

I give in Donny. You are right. An economy cannot function with a minimum wage. That's why America has not survived the introduction of a minimum wage in the 40s.

Strawman.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Furthermore, I'm sure we would have to look into how exactly we define unemployment. People would be able to get jobs easier at younger ages without a minimum wage (and if you counter this with an appeal to sweatshops, then you are missing the point).

We have some sort of minimum wage over here for specific industries decided by the industrial relations commision or someother such fancy name ( im not 100% sure of how it works) but at a younger age you are covered by the relelvant award which provides a sliding scale for age, so at my Subway job at 15 id get paid about AUD 7, where as at 19 id get about AUD 13.50 and now at 21 i get AUD 17.2.

A crude application of a minimum wage rule would stuff this up, but a sensible application as has been done recognises a scale for younger casual job workers etc.

[Blaircafe]

Exodus 16:18 and 2 Cor. 8:15 "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little." Corinthans precedes this by saying "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality . At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need."

Everyone needs food and shelter. Both the Old and New Testament state that everyone should have these basic needs met, whether they gather much or little. Minimum wage laws, as well as social security, are attempts by government to garauntee that everyone who works can support themselves. Those who are not protected by these laws, such as immigrant farm laborers, live many families to a house and become a drain on societies pocket books because of the health and welfare problems associated with living at or below the poverty level. People cost money. So, either we use the government to "encourage" business to pay every worker enough to support themselves and their families, or we allow business to do as it pleases and then use government funds (taxes) to feed, house, educate, and provide health care for those who do not earn enough to do it for themselves. Or we let people die from poverty. As a Christian who loves his neighbor, I vote for the first option.

[Blaircafe]

Donny,

I see what you are saying, but there is something you are not factoring in to your economic equation. Companies exist, and make their profit, in a society. The people of that society have basic needs. If they cannot meet those needs from their income, the government must step in , or let people die. Where does the governmet get its money? From its people and the busineeses they run. So business will pay for the welfare of the people, either through decent wages or higher taxes (Unless George Bush is president, but deficit spending is a whole 'nother issue)

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

We have some sort of minimum wage over here for specific industries decided by the industrial relations commision or someother such fancy name ( im not 100% sure of how it works) but at a younger age you are covered by the relelvant award which provides a sliding scale for age, so at my Subway job at 15 id get paid about AUD 7, where as at 19 id get about AUD 13.50 and now at 21 i get AUD 17.2.

A crude application of a minimum wage rule would stuff this up, but a sensible application as has been done recognises a scale for younger casual job workers etc.

Yeah, that would probably help, but the same essential problem is still there.

[+Donny]

If they cannot meet those needs from their income, the government must step in , or let people die.

Why must the government step in? Why can't charities, families, and the Church handle it? Why, when we have a problem like this, do we run first to the state?