Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage.

Excluding tasks for which labor is currently in short supply, the absolute effect of a minimum wage's rate upon all other job rates is the same.
Thus the minimum rate's purchasing power's effects upon differing job rates are proportional to the inverse of the difference between the rates' of the minimum and the job.
(I.E. after the transformation from the FMW to the indefinite minimum rate, the greatest proportional effect of a minimum rate remains to be upon the purchasing powers of the working poor's wages.  That proportional reduction of purchasing power diminishes as the individual pay scales approach the median wage).

Within labor markets lacking an enforced legally mandated minimum wage rate, an indefinite market determined minimum rate will emerge.  An indefinite minimum rate is "a race to the bottom".

The indefinite minimum rate will be of much lesser purchasing power than that of the FMW's rate. 
The transformation will increase jobs for the working poor.  Additionally (due to the transformation), some jobs providing pays exceeding those of the working poor, will drop down to the purchasing power of working poor jabs.
The working poor segment of our labor force will be greatly increased.  The majority of that increase will be of people not qualified to earn the FMW.  They join those who were (prior to the transformation) the employed working poor and some who earned rates exceeding those of the working poor.  Due to the transformation, all of the working poor jobs purchasing powers are drastically less than was the FMW's rate.

Under the FMW laws, applicants for the lowest wage jobs exceed the number of such jobs available.  Although after the transformation there are more jobs for the working poor, the rate of unemployment will greatly increase.  Even after we deduct the unemployed (after the transformation) that are not qualified to earn the FMW, this adjusted unemployment rate is greater than that prior to the transformation.

Under the FMW' minimum rate, the unmarried working poor do not generally receive public assistance. Under an indefinite minimum rate all of our working poor population will require public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

It's like I'm looking into a barrel full of fat carp and I've got a sawed-off 1100 12-ga. in my hands and my pockets are full of 3" magnums...

Quote from: Supposn on January 26, 2014, 07:23:23 PM
Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage.

Excluding tasks for which labor is currently in short supply, the absolute effect of a minimum wage's rate upon all other job rates is the same.
Thus the minimum rate's purchasing power's effects upon differing job rates are proportional to the inverse of the difference between the rates' of the minimum and the job.
(I.E. after the transformation from the FMW to the indefinite minimum rate, the greatest proportional effect of a minimum rate remains to be upon the purchasing powers of the working poor's wages.  That proportional reduction of purchasing power diminishes as the individual pay scales approach the median wage).

Within labor markets lacking an enforced legally mandated minimum wage rate, an indefinite market determined minimum rate will emerge.  An indefinite minimum rate is "a race to the bottom".

The indefinite minimum rate will be of much lesser purchasing power than that of the FMW's rate. 
The transformation will increase jobs for the working poor.  Additionally (due to the transformation), some jobs providing pays exceeding those of the working poor, will drop down to the purchasing power of working poor jabs.
The working poor segment of our labor force will be greatly increased.  The majority of that increase will be of people not qualified to earn the FMW.  They join those who were (prior to the transformation) the employed working poor and some who earned rates exceeding those of the working poor.  Due to the transformation, all of the working poor jobs purchasing powers are drastically less than was the FMW's rate.

Under the FMW laws, applicants for the lowest wage jobs exceed the number of such jobs available.  Although after the transformation there are more jobs for the working poor, the rate of unemployment will greatly increase.  Even after we deduct the unemployed (after the transformation) that are not qualified to earn the FMW, this adjusted unemployment rate is greater than that prior to the transformation.

Under the FMW' minimum rate, the unmarried working poor do not generally receive public assistance. Under an indefinite minimum rate all of our working poor population will require public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Assuming govt controlled every aspect of our lives, I guess this would apply, but it doesn't.
Would make sense if it were backed up in reality, but in a "FREE SOCIETY" govt will always fuck up everything it touches.

Why in the Hell do you post this nonsense?? Seriously, do you have a freakin mental disorder, one that forces a compulsion towards Stockholm-syndrome?

Quote from: Supposn on January 26, 2014, 07:23:23 PM
Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage.

Excluding tasks for which labor is currently in short supply, the absolute effect of a minimum wage's rate upon all other job rates is the same.
Thus the minimum rate's purchasing power's effects upon differing job rates are proportional to the inverse of the difference between the rates' of the minimum and the job.
(I.E. after the transformation from the FMW to the indefinite minimum rate, the greatest proportional effect of a minimum rate remains to be upon the purchasing powers of the working poor's wages.  That proportional reduction of purchasing power diminishes as the individual pay scales approach the median wage).

Within labor markets lacking an enforced legally mandated minimum wage rate, an indefinite market determined minimum rate will emerge.  An indefinite minimum rate is "a race to the bottom".

The indefinite minimum rate will be of much lesser purchasing power than that of the FMW's rate. 
The transformation will increase jobs for the working poor.  Additionally (due to the transformation), some jobs providing pays exceeding those of the working poor, will drop down to the purchasing power of working poor jabs.
The working poor segment of our labor force will be greatly increased.  The majority of that increase will be of people not qualified to earn the FMW.  They join those who were (prior to the transformation) the employed working poor and some who earned rates exceeding those of the working poor.  Due to the transformation, all of the working poor jobs purchasing powers are drastically less than was the FMW's rate.

Under the FMW laws, applicants for the lowest wage jobs exceed the number of such jobs available.  Although after the transformation there are more jobs for the working poor, the rate of unemployment will greatly increase.  Even after we deduct the unemployed (after the transformation) that are not qualified to earn the FMW, this adjusted unemployment rate is greater than that prior to the transformation.

Under the FMW' minimum rate, the unmarried working poor do not generally receive public assistance. Under an indefinite minimum rate all of our working poor population will require public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Wrong.  Please go take your medication.

I don't recall the last time I've been moved to quote Shakespeare, but, from Hamlet: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The Bard must've known our boy.

This is a piece (OP) written purposefully to be understood by only a few.

The claim is that by ending the minimum wage, wages will fall and this will create more jobs for the working poor, as well as pull wages in other employments down to this new level.

So we have a race to the bottom.

The result is said to be decreased incomes, decreased demand and when all is said and done, greater need for public assistance.

What OP misses is that wages can fall in nominal terms and rise in real terms, owing to the general deflation of wage rates and prices hinted at as a consequence of ending the minimum wage.

Market forces tend to push wages up to the level equal to the discounted marginal value product of said labor. Competition works to ensure that any firm underpaying for their factors will have to contend with other firms who see profits in bidding away these undervalued factors, whether labor or capital.

That is how the price system works.

And we should also remember that a lower wage structure will make buying US exports more attractive, as well as hiring US workers.

Indeed, the lot of the working poor is benefited by a world with market determined prices, where a slow growth-based deflation raises real wages, rather than a centrally planned world of price controls and monetary inflation.

For the state can dictate minimum wages, but it cannot create the wealth to make these wages possible in real terms. The circle is squared by eroding the purchasing power of the money wage, creating the money illusion.

And one cannot heat their home, nor feed their belly, on illusions and nominal sums.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 28, 2014, 08:14:28 AM
This is a piece (OP) written purposefully to be understood by only a few.

The claim is that by ending the minimum wage, wages will fall and this will create more jobs for the working poor, as well as pull wages in other employments down to this new level.

So we have a race to the bottom.

The result is said to be decreased incomes, decreased demand and when all is said and done, greater need for public assistance.

What OP misses is that wages can fall in nominal terms and rise in real terms, owing to the general deflation of wage rates and prices hinted at as a consequence of ending the minimum wage.

Market forces tend to push wages up to the level equal to the discounted marginal value product of said labor. Competition works to ensure that any firm underpaying for their factors will have to contend with other firms who see profits in bidding away these undervalued factors, whether labor or capital.

That is how the price system works.

And we should also remember that a lower wage structure will make buying US exports more attractive, as well as hiring US workers.

Indeed, the lot of the working poor is benefited by a world with market determined prices, where a slow growth-based deflation raises real wages, rather than a centrally planned world of price controls and monetary inflation.

For the state can dictate minimum wages, but it cannot create the wealth to make these wages possible in real terms. The circle is squared by eroding the purchasing power of the money wage, creating the money illusion.

And one cannot heat their home, nor feed their belly, on illusions and nominal sums.

Toward Liberty, I did consider only markets' effective minimum rates nominal value.  The race to the bottom is both in terms of wages' nominal and their purchasing powers' values.
I recall someone asking my mother "Do you remember (in the 1930's) when steak was a quarter per pound"?  My mother replied, "Yes; and no one had a quarter".

What difference is there between discussing nominal or adjusted rates of wages if the consequences remain to be the same increased rate of national poverty?

You are aware of enterprises competing upon both the quality of their products and their prices to obtain and retain customers.  Similarly enterprises compete to obtain and retain quality labor at the least wage rates.  Larger enterprises have some advantage but to a significant extent enterprises do have equitable opportunity to compete with each other.

Are you contending that the negotiation between employers of labor and the working poor are similarly as equitable as the competition between enterprises?

To the extent that the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is permitted to lag behind the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, ALL wages are affected.
.          The FMW rate has a very significant effect upon the wage rates' of the working poor and that effect decreases for other job rates as they approach the median wage.
In practice the FMW more or less effects All USA wages.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 27, 2014, 02:50:59 PM
I don't recall the last time I've been moved to quote Shakespeare, but, from Hamlet: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The Bard must've known our boy.

TBoneAgain, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

Quote from: Supposn on February 07, 2014, 02:41:28 AM
TBoneAgain, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

The title of your OP was "Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage." The federal minimum wage in the US has been in force without interruption since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. Since the federal minimum wage has been in effect for 76 years and its elimination has never been seriously pursued, there doesn't seem to be a history to repeat in this case. So I once again pose a question that has been presented to you a great many times on this board....

What the hell are you talking about?

Quote from: Supposn on February 07, 2014, 02:32:20 AM
Toward Liberty, I did consider only markets' effective minimum rates nominal value.  The race to the bottom is both in terms of wages' nominal and their purchasing powers' values.
I recall someone asking my mother "Do you remember (in the 1930's) when steak was a quarter per pound"?  My mother replied, "Yes; and no one had a quarter".

What difference is there between discussing nominal or adjusted rates of wages if the consequences remain to be the same increased rate of national poverty?

You are aware of enterprises competing upon both the quality of their products and their prices to obtain and retain customers.  Similarly enterprises compete to obtain and retain quality labor at the least wage rates.  Larger enterprises have some advantage but to a significant extent enterprises do have equitable opportunity to compete with each other.

Are you contending that the negotiation between employers of labor and the working poor are similarly as equitable as the competition between enterprises?

To the extent that the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is permitted to lag behind the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, ALL wages are affected.
.          The FMW rate has a very significant effect upon the wage rates' of the working poor and that effect decreases for other job rates as they approach the median wage.
In practice the FMW more or less effects All USA wages.

Respectfully, Supposn

Then why have/raise the minimum wage?

Quote from: TboneAgain on February 07, 2014, 10:33:37 AM
The title of your OP was "Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage." The federal minimum wage in the US has been in force without interruption since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. Since the federal minimum wage has been in effect for 76 years and its elimination has never been seriously pursued, there doesn't seem to be a history to repeat in this case. So I once again pose a question that has been presented to you a great many times on this board....

What the hell are you talking about?

1. Using your logic, then the second ammendment has been around for 200+ years, ditto for having "In God we Trust on our money", so why the hell are leftists trying to take these things away? Whatever the hell happened to the leftist argument about the law being a living, breathing argument? I guess that only applies to the laws you do not like and/or choose not to enforce. Lol

2. Why do leftists hate the concept of a free market using supply and demand to set a fair rate of exchange? Why do you guys hate free will?

Quote from: taxed on February 07, 2014, 10:36:35 AM
Then why have/raise the minimum wage?

Taxed, the justification of the minimum wage is that our nation's least paid workers and job applicants are certainly at severe disadvantage when negotiating with employers' of labor.  The pay scale of our lowest paid labor affects all other pay scales.  Its affect is inversely related; it greatest effect is upon the lowest quarter of our nation's wage earners.

[As jobs' the purchasing power of individual jobs' pay scales increase, the minimum wage rate's effect upon the jobs' purchasing power proportionally decline incrementally.  As jobs' pay scales approach the median wage rate, the minimum wage's effect upon individual job's pay rates become extremely less perceivable].

You correctly to question the benefit of a legal minimum wage that does not keep pace with the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.
That's why I'm among the many that advocate the federal minimum wage should be annually evaluated and adjusted to the cost-price index.  That method has been excellently functioning as it's now applied to social security retirement benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn

Once again what is wrong with letting the free markets determine prices for labor? If you aren't worth $10 and hour and I am forced to pay at least $10 an hour then I am not going to hire you. How does that help you to have no job? Oh right, you can always fall back on some government program such as perpetual unemployment payments. 

Libs are not really concerned about the people being paid the minimum wage. However, by pushing this it helps their union buddies negotiate higher wages which means more in dues that is laundered back to the democrat party.