Gyroscopic Investing

I agree. What I made as a teen in the 1970s scooping ice cream at 31 Flavors would be $11 or $12 now, inflation adjusted. AND THEY DO IT THE SAME WAY.

ochotona wrote: I agree. What I made as a teen in the 1970s scooping ice cream at 31 Flavors would be $11 or $12 now, inflation adjusted. AND THEY DO IT THE SAME WAY.

So logically if the inflation-adjusted minimm wage is so low in real terms, everyone should be employed, right?  Right???  As usual the correct the answer is in the middle and not to either wingnut extreme.

when did logic get involved in government?

ochotona wrote: when did logic get involved in government?

Nothing to do with government and everything to do with economic ideology.  Either side is wrong about the minimum wage and the current situation proves it.  Too high and you kill jobs, too low and it doesn't promote jobs.

ochotona wrote: I agree. What I made as a teen in the 1970s scooping ice cream at 31 Flavors would be $11 or $12 now, inflation adjusted. AND THEY DO IT THE SAME WAY.

Sounds like it might be a supply and demand issue. I'm guessing the supply of ice cream scoopers willing to work for lower wages has outpaced the demand for them.

And also maybe the value of the skill of being able to scoop ice cream has gone down in the past 45 years.

Setting the minimum wage is central planning at its finest.  I feel central planning has a horrible track record of failure to achieve goals, while producing massive unintended and often unseen consequences. 

I see no reason to think that minimum wage planning is exempt from that.  I guess that makes me a wingnut!
 

I Shrugged wrote: Setting the minimum wage is central planning at its finest.  I feel central planning has a horrible track record of failure to achieve goals, while producing massive unintended and often unseen consequences. 

Like the classic case of raising the minimum wage to $15 in Seattle where they are now complaining about losing their government benefits.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/seattl ... ected-way/

In Sweden we do not have a minimum wage. Any wage is better than no wage.
In Sweden we actually very little legislation in regards to contracts.

lordmetroid wrote: In Sweden we do not have a minimum wage. Any wage is better than no wage.
In Sweden we actually very little legislation in regards to contracts.

That is very interesting! So, in Sweden, if you have a low-skill worker in a shop making and serving Doner Kabob or Hamburgers, how many SEK do they earn per hour?

The thing that really galls me about the low wages here is that the workers are often on government benefits, so in effect the government is subsidizing Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. I am sure the corporate managers like it exactly that way.

It's welfare on two levels, to the workers and to corporations! That's just totally wrong.

This ranking is ignoring one fundamental truth:  the low-skilled labor market in the U.S. is not competing with ANY of the countries on this list.  It's competing with China, Indonesia, India, Mexico, and similar places.

Also, "median" wage is going to depend very much on high end salaries pulling the median upward.  The U.S. might simply have more high end wage earners than the other countries on the list.

I'm curious to know what Craig thinks about New Zealand's minimum wage being on the high end of this scale.

So the US can improve minimum wage by lowering median wage?

ochotona wrote:

lordmetroid wrote: In Sweden we do not have a minimum wage. Any wage is better than no wage.
In Sweden we actually very little legislation in regards to contracts.

That is very interesting! So, in Sweden, if you have a low-skill worker in a shop making and serving Doner Kabob or Hamburgers, how many SEK do they earn per hour?

The thing that really galls me about the low wages here is that the workers are often on government benefits, so in effect the government is subsidizing Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. I am sure the corporate managers like it exactly that way.

It's welfare on two levels, to the workers and to corporations! That's just totally wrong.

Depends on whether the store has a union contract or not. The unions negotiate section wide standard contracts which usually contains a specification of wages and benefits. However if the store do not have such a contract it is up to you to get the wage you feel like you are worth. If the store employees do demand a union contract they usually get it as it would otherwise be strikes and public shaming of the store that refuses to sign such a contract.

Why don't we just raise the median wage?

WildAboutHarry wrote: So the US can improve minimum wage by lowering median wage?

Dunno about that, but it would mess with the chart's conclusions.  Don't you love meaningless statistics??

lordmetroid wrote: Depends on whether the store has a union contract or not. The unions negotiate section wide standard contracts which usually contains a specification of wages and benefits. However if the store do not have such a contract it is up to you to get the wage you feel like you are worth. If the store employees do demand a union contract they usually get it as it would otherwise be strikes and public shaming of the store that refuses to sign such a contract.

Very insightful, and very different from the USA.

WiseOne wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote: So the US can improve minimum wage by lowering median wage?

Dunno about that, but it would mess with the chart's conclusions.  Don't you love meaningless statistics??

85% of statistics are made up on the spot!

So $15 is too much but $12 is "just right"?

I'm so tired of all the economic ignoramuses in politics.

ochotona wrote: The thing that really galls me about the low wages here is that the workers are often on government benefits, so in effect the government is subsidizing Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. I am sure the corporate managers like it exactly that way.

It's welfare on two levels, to the workers and to corporations! That's just totally wrong.

I just had a similar thought earlier today!

My wife's mom works for a low wage (despite being relatively skilled at what she does). I was wondering why she doesn't try to improve her situation and realized that she is already relatively comfortable thanks to subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. She's worked at the same place for years handling far more responsibility than she gets paid for. In a way, the welfare benefits are really going directly to her employer because she wouldn't be working there at that wage otherwise.

As an aside, I recently took notice to the fact that despite having grown up below the poverty line, wasting food doesn't bother bother my wife as much as it bothers me. I recently asked her about it, and she thought about it and said something to the effect of, well I guess it's because we didn't pay for our food.

Finally, to keep things on topic, I always liked this quip from Harry that he snuck into a discussion about economics:

"Economics tries to identify what a nation will have to give up if the government decides that everyone is entitled to free milk and cookies, or decrees that no one may be hired whose labor isn't worth a minimum wage."

- Harry Browne, "Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong"

Labor participation stats are very interesting facts for this sort of thing. Those who should be retiring aren't and younger workers who should be entering the work force aren't.

Think about that for a bit...

Sooner or later, old boomers will leave the workforce, even if they're 75 or 80. At that point, companies will have a serious labor shortage and will hire all the communication and queer studies majors.

Jack Jones wrote: "Economics tries to identify what a nation will have to give up if the government decides that everyone is entitled to free milk and cookies, or decrees that no one may be hired whose labor isn't worth a minimum wage."

- Harry Browne, "Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong"

I'd be careful about believing in Austrian economic absolutisms.  They have a chronic and nasty habit of being proven wrong.  The real world is many shades of grey not black or white.

Pointedstick wrote: Sooner or later, old boomers will leave the workforce, even if they're 75 or 80. At that point, companies will have a serious labor shortage and will hire all the communication and queer studies majors.

Hopefully we'll have robots by that time so those ultra liberals can stew in their rage even further and be inspired to start the first New Luddite movement.  Hmm, haven't I seen that movie before???

MachineGhost wrote:

Jack Jones wrote: "Economics tries to identify what a nation will have to give up if the government decides that everyone is entitled to free milk and cookies, or decrees that no one may be hired whose labor isn't worth a minimum wage."

- Harry Browne, "Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong"

I'd be careful about believing in Austrian economic absolutisms.  They have a chronic and nasty habit of being proven wrong.  The real world is many shades of grey not black or white.

There's nothing to believe here. It's just another way of defining minimum wage.

MangoMan wrote: Your wife is very insightful. OMG, is that ever true; People have zero appreciation for what is given to them free. Value is placed only when you have skin in the game.

That's only true if it is value production.  Politicians have skin in the game of value destruction.