...in Australia, the minimum wage is 3x higher than in America. Our unemployment rate is only 1% higher than yours.... Plus, people are already paying more in America. Only you call it "tipping" In Australia, we pay for people's wages by working that into our pricing structure. It doesn't actually cost the employer any more, it costs the customers more. And since you already tip in America, it wouldn't make any difference
That is incorrect. Australia's minimum wage laws actually fairly explicitly account for the problem identified in this video by only applying to certain industries and increasing to the top limit based on the age of the worker. For example, a fast food worker who is 16 years old would currently be subject to a minimum wage of AUS$10.39/hour. If that same employee was over 21, their minimum would be AUS$20.79/hour. calculate.fairwork.gov.au/CheckPay/Summary Converted to USD, the 16 year old's minimum wage is $7.43, which is not substantially different from the US federal minimum. The 21+ year old base would be $14.87 USD. Notably, that's less than the $16 you claimed in any case. Imagine, though, what would happen if the $14.87/hour rate applied to the 16 year olds. There would be far less incentive to employ them when more experienced adults could be employed at the same rate. If Australia raised its minimum wage the way American activists want, they would see the same kinds of youth unemployment issues. Moreover, racism against aboriginal people is still rather extreme in Australia, and undoubtedly minimum wage laws affect that population in nearly the same way as described above. And indeed, the data supports this point. Aboriginal people have a much higher unemployment rate than white Australians, and currently stands at between 16-23% in different areas. Their labor participation rate is also extremely low... 44% are not even looking for work, which is double that of non-Aborigines. www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/aboriginal-employment-jobs-careers So the point very much stands. Raising minimum wage rates can have profoundly negative consequences for young people and minorities.
Also, restaurants are the only businesses exempt from standard minimum wage in the US based on tipping. We don't generally tip outside of that context. It's a little weird, to be honest, but it is a very small part of the whole picture.
Ok, that seems fair But in the name of education, I live in a town where there is a very high aboriginal community. We have plenty of jobs that can, legally, only be filled by aboriginals. Many of them go for months without a single applicant. Some have been jobs I would love to have applied for, but unfortunately, I'm not aboriginal, so I could not apply for them. I've met many hard working Aboriginals, but I've met many more who were drunk at 11am. I've got good friends who are aboriginal. I've also only ever been robbed by aboriginals. It's a complicated issue, and there is a LOT more involved than simply being racism
kylejiahsmith, minorities in America would say it’s still the fault of systemic racism, possibly even the racism of decades ago. That’s how affirmative action is still justified. That and the idea that because racism still exists in America, there’s no way for them to compete on a level playing field, so naturally, they need positions set aside for them. I don’t agree with that mentality, btw, but that’s the exact mentality of liberals who fight for greater minimum wage. Plus they’d call you a racist for blaming anything on aboriginals.
Poor people: NOOOO YOU CANT JUST TAKE MONEY I NEED TO FIGHT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND GIVE FOREIGN NATIONS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHILE 1/4 CHILDREN STARVE IN THE US ALONE! US government: haha bullets go bang bang!
@Rend I’ve seen unpaid interns at Fortune 500 companies. If the company can fill a position with little to no pay offered, there’s little incentive to raise wages. It’s the primary reason IMO that wages are stagnant. Jobs are jobs and people will fill them, regardless of wage fairness. Benevolence and business conduct do not mix. I’m amazed that people think they do.
You're completely ignoring the fact that those interns are acquiring knowledge and experience in their industry, and once capable, can leverage their skills to companies that would pay them a good wage. You're expecting the employers to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to wages, but if you actually had a sought after skill, that you were proficient in, you would know that, you get paid more, if you negotiate your wage. Not, because you exist and want the money.
@@OverCooked10 exept the majority of the time companies abuse unpaids interns and use them as nothing more than glorified secretary's, teaching them nothing about the job they're interning for
And in turn those interns gain experience to get great jobs afterwards. Also, they agreed to that opportunity with that in mind. Don't remember interns being enslaved.
In the end any job is no different from paying Timmy 5 dollars to mow the lawn. If Timmy suddenly demands 50 you mow it yourself. If Timmy complains to the Homeowners Association and they pass a rule saying only Timmy is allowed to mow the lawn on penalty of 45 dollars for every infractions. You mow it yourself once, pay the fine and then sell your house to move to a less commie neighborhood.
It's both sad and funny that the very people who believe carbon taxes should be used to decrease the use of fossil fuels do not believe that increasing the cost of low skilled labor will decrease the use of low skilled labor.
Let me fix that for you. With an increase in minimum wage, teenagers and other potential employees with little or no job skills will be completely priced out of the job market. Look at the minimum wage increase in Seattle. The first tier didn't help. The second tier cost minimum wage employees an average of $125 per month. That's according to the local university economics department that the city hired to prove what geniuses they were for hiking the minimum wage. For someone making minimum wage, $125 per month is a very big deal. Seattle's full minimum wage hikes still haven't fully gone into effect and based on what we've seen so far, it's going to be very bad news for the people these politicians promised to help.
You seem to think that central economic planners can make economic decisions better than the market. The USSR tried that and it didn't work so well. Do you really think that city councils can do a better job of selecting the optimal minimal wage for everyone, as opposed to allowing employers and employees to freely negotiate for the appropriate wages in each individual case? If I was entering the job market, I'd be hopping mad that my city council set a minimum wage that prevented me from getting the entry level job that I need to learn some work skills and demonstrate my reliability and worth. You seem to think there is some delay before the workers' increased wages stimulate the local economy but I've already debunked that popular optimistic myth. The take home wages of Seattle's minimum wage employees have gone DOWN since their city council increased the minimum wage, according to the council's own study. Rather than stimulating Seattle's economy, the increased minimum wage law is a big wet blanket that is dragging down Seattle's economy, and that effect will only worsen as the effects of the law continue. Unfortunately, the politicians are too arrogant to admit that they made a mistake, so these employees will continue to suffer.
It's immoral to use the force of government to interfere with any contracts between employers and employees even when a case might be made that more people benefit from a minimum wage than are harmed by it. I'd be mad if a minimum wage priced me out of my first job regardless of whether someone who already had a job got a government mandated non-merit raise. However, $15 per hour is a net aggregate loss for low skilled employees in even the most upscale market. In other words, it hurts more people than it helps. I guess it's good for companies selling automation, and governments in the business of redistributing wealth and taking their cut off the top.
It's not immoral if the political community owns the land and resources based on an agreement, i.e. contract, like a Constitution. Then the people, who are the owners, can establish whatever rules for regulating how property is occupied, utilized, transferred, whatever, just like a private entity. If a private entity is free to do whatever they want with their own property, then the same logic applies to publicly owned property. Your basic argument amounts to "if it's consensual, it's not immoral". Well, we consented to the Constitution and it's various laws and legislation, and so whatever the owners of the resources decide to do with them is justified and moral.
20% taxes at minimum wage? I wish. Depending on how much I work at Burger King. 25-28% in Michigan. You're welcome. Hope the roads here will be better soon. (Never going to happen)
How about we tax the rich? Instead of the worker? Yeah I think that would be better but y’all wouldn’t really want that huh. Because public infrastructure is bad
@@wyattwilliamson5896 rich people pay the vast majority of taxes already, fyi. The top half of income earners pay 97% of all tax revenue. The top 1% alone bears 40.1% of the tax burden (and earns 20.9% of the income, in case you were thinking it was proportionate). taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/
@@sinthalis I'll add another little conundrum for "tax the rich" folks. Often, I am told to look to the Nordic countries as a model for progressive taxation. None of them seem to realize that they actually have a *more* even distribution of tax rates - that is, the poor and middle class pay higher taxes relative to rich people in their societies - than the US. taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/
@@FEEonline I just like to tell those people that the rich already pay more then most people make in a year in taxes some by multiple years worth even with the top 1% paying more in taxes then most will see in their lifetime
@gespilk You say "Minimum wage is a way to say that if you're employed you should be able to have some level of dignity measured by your living standard provided by that wage." If you want to talk about relativistic reasoning just read that paragraph again. None of what you said is objectively true. Thomas Sowell and this video provided data to support their views. So again I ask you to provide evidence that Thomas Sowell is an "intellectual charlatan".
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
Most people can’t choose to work fewer hours or quit their jobs because taxes are higher. If anything, you’d work more to earn the same amount of money. Your logic only holds if the person in question is rich and/or self-employed, or if compensation can be shifted from salary to benefits (thereby avoiding income taxes).
@@azaria5419 His logic still works because as you said, its harder to earn the same amount of money if you are being taxed and the government is basically forcing you to either work more or move to another job
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
Unions love it more seeing as they typically have their rates tied to MW. Whatever the percentage increase in the MW is then applied to the union wages. Quite a racket.
@@mr.bozobozo5504 Which is why Walmart and Amazon love MW laws. They don't want to pay it themselves, but they love the idea of EVERY business having to - because it pushes small business out of the market. At the end of the day Walmart just increases the prices to cover the higher cost of labor. Only now they can increase it more than the MW did - there is less competition they have to worry about.
Jeff Bezos has been openly defending the exact same $15 minimum wage people who criticize him online defend. It's almost as if minimum wage increases, as well as more regulations and taxes, won't negatively affect the billionaires who can afford them. Only the little guy desperately trying to survive the competition with them.
@Firelord Eliteast67 that seems to be the choice today really. Even if you were to be more of a centrist, you will still get called either a communist by libertarians or a capitalistic pig by communists. All in all, i think that economically speaking libertarianism makes more sense , and seems logical so thats why i choose it. Plus i come from an ex socialist country so i have a deep hatered for the system.
You also have to check the ulterior motives of a misleading propaganda channel that claims to speak the simple truth but picks and choose what they present very carefully and laces it with half-truths and leaves a lot out
If you really care about raising the cost of labor, You can get rid of legal entrepreneur bottlenecks to increase demand for labor. This would raise the intersection (price) on a S/D graph without lowering supply like a minimum wage accidentally does
I believe the last time my country raised the minimum wage, landlords also raised the price for renting. The buying power of the dollar never really increases, as the poor earns more money.
@@martletkay and if you cap rent, less rentals are built which causes an increase in homelessness. Yay youve made everyone's money worth less, pushed many people out of work, and now pushed even more people on to the street
Another thing people seem to overlook about minimum wage is that it is generally paid to entry level positions. Most people don't continually work for the minimum. They gain skills and experience and move up to a higher wage, then a new group enter at minimum wage. Yet people act like everyone on minimum wage will stay at that rate their entire lives and it needs to be increased for them to survive.
The issue is that nowadays people are stuck at minimum wage level jobs for life. It is disturbing watching as the average age of all the fastfood/store employees just keeps going up. These people are stuck in the entry-level jobs because getting new skills is too expensive (tuition) and experience isn't valued without education for higher-level jobs anymore.
I haven't noticed that, but I believe it would be highly dependent the economy of a specific area. In fact I rarely see the same person in an entry level position for more than a year, and often, far less than that. However, I am fortunate enough to live in an area where high school dropouts can, regularly do, earn in the top 5-10% of the national earnings. To be fair, though, I would not be surprised to see statistics back up what you said.
It doesn’t help we have all these old people from the baby boomers that haven’t retired yet, and are taking jobs that would generally be taken by younger people.
Bobby Ok cool a reasonable minimum wage, $10-$11, as opposed to $15. Most employers pay around this much anyway. Not sure about how the tipped workers go about, though I hear mixed reactions. Job progression helps too; should be more skilled or supervising to an extent after a few years, though unfortunately some employers want this to be free labor, or too cheap to hire new workers and set them up to fail.
In my country business started to adopt the minimum wage as "proper" wage. As in, if you'd have otherwise been payed 15$ an hour after implementing a minimum wage of 8$ the wages for your line of work would subsequently be reduced to 8$ even if the prices of the goods you either produce or purchase don't change or worse yet, increase in price.
All this talk about minimum wage really overlooks the issue of how more and more people are reliant on massive companies to make a living. In the 1950's, about 25% of Americans were self-employed outside of the farming sector. By the mid 1960's, that number had shrunk to 11% and further shrunk to 8% by the 2000's and dropped again to 7% by the mid-2010's. Sadly, any information beyond that is hard to come by, but the fact people aren't talking more about this is really concerning to me.
I think getting rid of the minimum wage would not hurt at all. My home state of NJ has an $8.60 minimum wage and currently every job is offering at least $10, even the crappy teenager jobs. If wages really were a race to the bottom then why can't I find any paying the minimum?
So Emerald Solace you think to limit the number of business by the high cost of operations is going to make your poor States better off? 10 employees at 5 an hour or 5 employees at 10 an hour which one puts more money into the economy? Normally it would be equal except we have welfare and the 5 unemployed cost everyone money to do nothing.
Barskor1 I’m saying each state should be handled differently. The us is too damn large to even be able to take care of its own shit. The standard of living is different in many places, and the minimum wage too.
gespilk If you want to do well and are willing to put in effort, a free market is the only way you can change your position. Every other system leaves you trapped where you're born more or less.
gespilk The true nature of of the free market is voluntary exchange between people. When government gets involved with special favors that’s not a free market.
gespilk No. you’re wrong. Everyone gets richer with voluntary trade. Every trade must benefit both sides otherwise the trade never happens. So, again, to become wealthy in a capitalist economy you need to always give customers products and services they want at a price they are willing to pay. Your competitors want profits also so they will look for way to produce better low cost products in order to win over new customers. So there is a tendency over time for cheaper better made products. Those lower priced products make consumers wealthier because they will have more money left over to buy other products or services. Here is just one example. Mainframe computer $4.7 million in 1970; today PCs 20x faster with more memory sell for less than $500 with accessories. Are all consumers wealthier because computers are much cheaper and better quality? You bet they are!! Yet computer manufacturers still make millions or billions in profits every year.
gespilk I’ve just shown how voluntary trade leads to both consumers and producers becoming wealthier. I also gave you the computer example showing prices dropping over the years saving consumers large amounts of money leading to higher standards of living for all. You say the market makes poorer and kills them and yet you give no examples. I win. I’m right and you are wrong but won’t acknowledge this. I wish you luck in your little dream world you live in. BTW, the only way other than voluntary transactions for consumer and producers to deal with each other is with the use of a gun. This is what you favor. There is no other choice. It’s either voluntary or a gun.
When the minimum wage was implemented, it was stated to be a "living wage". Which is what many supporters of minimum wage increase reference, since the living wage in America is at least twice that in most places.
You should have mentioned that an increased cost of labor causes an increase in the price of goods and services which in turn would lead to a decline in the overall purchasing power of the people earning above minimum wage. More than likely this would result in a larger decrease in the purchasing power of income than there would be in the increased income of low-skilled workers.
Increase in prices are allot lower than the minimum wage increase is because labor is only a fraction of operating costs. Plenty of stores just eat the new cost but if you increase prices by the amount costs have gone up it is going to be very small. Wages go up by 20% and wages are 20% of costs? prices up 4%
Many fast food restaurants and grocery stores, which commonly employee minimum wage workers, have payroll accounting for 25-40% of operating costs. These same places already make very slim profit margins that average around 3-5%. A 20% increase in wages would eat all profits and would force businesses to cut hours for workers or raise prices(which would also need to make up for decreased demand due to higher prices). Businesses need reasonable profit margins in order to grow and stay afloat so they will get that money be working employees harder or by charging customers more. Even though minimum wage workers may very well receive more income, the vast majority of workers already earn more than minimum wage and will not see their income rise. On the contrary the majority of workers will see themselves being able to buy less stuff because businesses need to raise prices in order to maintain reasonable profits.
@@reaper10unleashed Agreed, even if labor is a small cost to you as a business you need to allow for your materials, which will now be more expensive to produce, transport and sell. The main effect of raising the minimum wage is that prices are inflated, which is most detrimental to those only slightly above the minimum wage as their spending power is decreased.
"Labor" is people though, it's fundamentally different from gas or cigarettes. Gas doesn't care whether you pay a low or high price for it, it's just gas. However, if you pay too low of a price for "labor" then "labor" can't afford housing or commodities.
Clever conflation of 'having' and 'raising'. Of course minimum wage can be too high that it has a negative effect. Not having one at all is a race to the bottom. The correct minimum wage increases employment because it give more people more money to buy things, so raises demand for things to be made and sold, thus raises employment
In California we make $13/hr as minimum wage, rest of the country is at $7.50/hr. I’m a bus driver, when I started here it was at 12.50/hr with min wage at $10.50/hr, now I’m at $13.75, min wage 13.50/hr. How exactly does min wage help me when next year our union’s CBA raises our wages to just $14.15/hr when min wage also goes up to $14/hr?!? CBA for 2022 hasn’t been discussed yet, but 2022 min wage goes up to $15/hr. Company I work for isn’t making enough atm with lockdowns to pay for all their overhead and the 70 drivers it needs to run on restrictive care, min wage isn’t going to help especially since those ashats in LA want it to be raised to $20/hr before 2025 because landlords keep raising their rent. In California, your rent is based on the average minimum wage (really seems like it.) So a single room is $1400/mo in the Riverside Area, $900/mo for 55+. Restrict these, don’t raise min wage, it doesn’t help the issue’s Systemic roots.
@@jabber1990 Please look at the industrial revolution age wages, some wages were only 2 dollars an hour, you cannot survive on the current US minimum wage
@@InternetUser-xo2uw Wrong, in the context of that time it was perfectly possible to survive on $ 2 an hour. Raising the minimum wage makes it impossible to survive even on $ 1,000,000 an hour.
Now, there's another question. If we tax cigarettes to try to keep people from smoking and alcohol to try to keep people from drinking, remind me why there's a tax on income.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
@@martletkay my point is the income tax results in less money in the hands of poor people. Property taxes serve to increase costs to be housed, personal property taxes serve to increase the cost of owning motorized transportation. These taxes ARTIFICIALLY raise those costs to the detriment of low income Americans. If you're going to tax a commodity harshly to discourage its use, what difference is there in imposing such taxes on necessities like income, housing, and personal transportation? It is a punishment for being a productive member of society far as I'm concerned
I live in Alberta. When we raised the minimum wage many small businesses closed, except the extremely small who didn’t have workers to pay, and the larger businesses had to fire workers and raise prices to stay afloat (or in some cases, manage their own greed).
Right, let's just ignore all the other reasons small businesses were already closing left and right. Definitely not the constant assault on the economy by the rich and definitely not all the monopolies running rampant. It's like saying people left town when they put up the windmills but ignoring all the toxic waste
I can't afford employees. Not even because I can't afford to pay them. But I can't afford the costs associated with them. The taxes keep me from wanting them. Lol
This is my understanding before I watch the vid: 6 workers getting paid 10$ each if minimum wage rises then the business owner can’t afford that sixth worker and ends up firing them as a result
No minimum: Workers die in the streets because they are not paid a wage they can live on, plus in most countries, minimum wage increases with inflation.
@@cowboy2006 Because they can not choose their wage in this case, if you only have 1 shot at getting a job before you run out of food, you would take any job, no matter how bad, most workers do not have union support, so they cannot negotiate their wage for entry level jobs.
The problem with this problem, heh, is that there is no one answer that will solve things, no "silver bullet" if you will. To really solve the problem we need to make a multitude of steps simultaneously, many of which are cultural instead of economic, realize we missed something in the first attempt and then honestly go back to fix it with out giving up on the idea.
Think this is about the most sensible thing I've read in the comments. Not saying I haven't read tons of sensible comments, lol, just that yours stands out among them, eh
The thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
2:00 But how can you improve your living circumstances if you’re stuck working 60 hours a week minimum wage while living on cheap rent, ramen noodles, and possibly even resorting to government subsidies such as food stamps and medicaid. I admire the whole “pick yourself up by the bootstraps” mentality that many republicans have but when people are struggling just to find the time to go back to school or find some way to become a more qualified worker, how can they do so if these are their circumstances. I’m not asking for a big yacht with a twin motor. I’m just asking for a tiny little row boat with a beat up paddle.
I don't usually comment on stuff, especially from a month ago, but if you're still a bit confused, the video criticized minimum wage as an ineffective way of combating poverty, and in deed economically, that makes sense. However, this doesn't mean that we should stop helping the poor, there are still ways like increasing unemployment benefits, government providing resources for the poor and the homeless. It is important that we don't leave these people behind, but it's just that increasing the minimum wage is not how to do it. Hopes that clear it up :)
The way I see it, and try to explain it to people, is that money is a place holder for time worked. If you make $10/hour a $10 item actually costs 1 hour of work. If minimum wage is increases to $15/hour there will be a brief time of instability with layoffs, reduced hours, and price increases but the economy will eventually stabilize. You now make $15/hour but the price of that $10 item has gone up to $15 to compensate for the increase in minimum wage, so it still costs 1 hour of work. Increasing minimum wage causes a bunch of instability and hardship for ultimately nothing. In fact it actually makes things worse for the people making more than minimum wage because prices go up but they don't get a raise to compensate.
Prices go up whether or not minimum wage increases because that's the way businesses operate. But, minimum wage has not increased to compensate for inflation. Personally, what I think would happen is that things like fast food will increase, and the prices in chain stores will increase, but other industries where skilled workers making more than minimum wage will stay at around the same price. Which is what we want. The fast food workers and retail workers want to be able to afford a decent place to live, a nice tv, a game console or two, and basically the base level comforts that people in other industries can afford and might even take for granted that they can afford them. In my opinion, a $2-$5 price increase for my McDonald's meal is an acceptable sacrifice for that. It wouldn't break the economy for Wal-Mart to pay their employees a little bit more.
@@qty1315 prices increase due to several factors, wages being one of them. Minimum wage does increase with inflation, it does so every few years and most people have no issue with that. The big push right now is for minimum wage to be a "life" wage, or an income that a person can sustain themselves on. Most people don't have issues with that comcept either, however, the life wage intends to make your part time McDonald's/Wal-Mart worker middle class by paying them $30,000+ per year. Doing so will greatly disrupt the economy until things normalize, and $30,000 per year becomes equivalent to $10,000 per year, like many minimum wage people currently earn. Also increasing minimum wage, without increasing the wages of highly trained skilled trades is a net pay cut to skilled labor. Skilled trades often pay $50k. Increasing retail and fast food groom $10k to $30k is like giving skilled trades a $20k pay cut since prices and inflation will increase dramatically to compensate. There will also be layoffs. Every time minimum wage has increased, unemployment rates have increased shortly after as companies terminate workers to cut costs and small businesses close. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be life long careers. Typically, as people age they gain experience which allows them to either be promoted or find a higher paying job. There are several people who don't understand this statistical fact. They feel that it is unfair for someone 20 years older than them, with 20 years more experience, and a higher level of education and training, to make more money than they do. There are those that are middle aged with familes that are working what are typically considered minimum wage jobs. What most people don't know is that these workers are often making more than minimum wage, but not much. They also typically have never advanced their education or training, nor have they attempted to advance their career other than looking for the same job but from a different employer. They are being paid what uneducated, unskilled, and inexperienced labor gets paid, because thats the type of worker that they are and the type of job they have. If minimum wage paid close to what highly trained and skilled workers make, then why would people spend the time, effort, and money to work a more difficult job that pays nearly the same as the job they had in high school?
@@mechredd You're assuming that the majority of people working in minimum wage jobs are high schoolers. That probably was the case in the 80s/90s, but it isn't now.
@@qty1315 58.5% of minimum wage workers are ages 16 to 24. Majority of those over 24 are people that started a minimum wage job when they were young and never advanced beyond it. The number of older people in low paying jobs is increasing but that's mainly because the number of young people staying in low paying jobs their entire lives is increasing. Minimum wage increases also slightly contribute to this problem. For example, a person working retail will receive small raises for every year of employment, as most jobs do, however, the raises are so small that when minimum wage increases by a few dollars, as it does in most states every few years, that person is now once again making minimum wage. What has changed since the 80's and 90's is how to get promoted. Back in the day, a person could start as a cashier or stock boy, then if they stayed long term, they could move into management and start making a good income. Starting from the bottom and working your way up has become a thing of the past as more and more jobs require a college education, that didn't only a few years ago. Now you can start at the bottom and work to the middle or start in the middle and work toward the top. Raising minimum wage isn't going to fix the issue. Minimum wage will always be minimum wage, and will always be for unskilled and inexperienced workers. Inflation and market dynamics will see to that. My original point of the true currency being time worked will always be valid regardless of whatever number of dollars gets assigned to it. If a person wants their time worked to be worth more, then they need to become worth more as a worker, which requires increased skills, education, and experience.
@@mechredd That study you are referring to is outdated. The reality is that in 2017 52% of minimum wage workers were in that age range, while in 2018 43% were. The amount of people outside of the high school and college age group working in minimum wage jobs is increasing at an alarming rate.
I want to see a in depth analysis comparing automatic checkout and a minimum wage cashier. Automatic checkout is something WalMart and Dollar General can afford to purchase, but you can bet a Mom & Pop store never could.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
When they last increased the minimum wage, my hours were cut and me and my coworkers suffered. One of my coworkers was taking care of both his wife and disabled girlfriend and couldn't afford to lose any hours.
Nobody ever talks about cost of poverty, but why would they? It is not the companies picking up the welfare bill, not when stop Besos act was thrown out
The thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
The difference is that the companies still need labour to function, Tax water and people wont stop drinking. Also it allows protection against people who are working a full time job to remain unable to afford basic necessities
Oh my god, an actually sane person who doesn't just think humans are commodities. See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
The problem with e.g. unreasonably high cigarette cost is that, in reality, people simply buy less other products and/or services, or buy their cigarettes from abroad, mostly illegally.
...Sorta? Two things it neglects: 1. It uses small businesses as an excuse. While it is true that this kills small businesses (see 2), it's lack makes it impossible for laborers to survive or obtain any good standard for living. IF labor were scarce, that would not be an issue, but it's virtually infinite. And we all know what happens when there's lots of supply and little demand... 2. ...On the other hand, labor is not a luxury good for businesses: It's a necessity. You can drive up the minimum wage as much as you want and the companies in question either sink or swim, they have no choice but to take labor. This is a great idea in theory. An awesome one in fact. It's little practical technicalities that kill it. On an unrelated note: If you increase the cost of labor by 10%, the cost of the product does NOT necessarily increase by 10%. There's base material costs to consider in all this as well.
We’re at very low levels of employment. Labor is nothing even close to approaching infinite. In fact, my parents have been trying to fire one of their managers for months now. First cause he’s incompetent and then because he’s stealing. In your world, they wouldn’t have even had to put up with his incompetence, let alone even one day of his theft. Skilled labor IS scarce, a business that is already struggling can’t afford to pay bad workers even more money. Technically, they can. They can sell the business, sell the land, sell their equipment and fire everyone. But I don’t know how that’s supposed to help these laborers “survive”.
For those who constantly praise the Nordic countries for their education, healthcare, free college, etc and says we should be more like those countries, note that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway have NO minimum wage...
If I recall correctly, though, they have very involved Unions that act as the government in this portion and institute a minimum wage through their power.
I work a minimum wage job in a college town. at 30 hours that's $870 monthly and $174 of that goes to taxes. Yet i'm not fucking complaining. At least I am working, developing skills for the market place, and working on a degree.
I’m largely divided on the minimum wage, but to be fair to the opposition, when you say it hurts racial minorities, and then say that low skilled labor is priced out, that kind of implied that minorities are low skilled labor.
For dumbing you down and keeping you working against your own interest. Like most conservative tripe. See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
People working 1 or more jobs and not able to even afford their drive to work much less rent but technically being employed is nothing to be proud of. Humans were not made to be employed. We were not spawned as workforce to be used by the rich as they please. We are human. And we make the rules. We are not beholden to what the rich want. We can change the rules. Employment means nothing if it's not improving people's lives, much less giving them the absolute, cold and calculated bare minimum. We have been trained to view employment as something the rich offers like a penny to a beggar child; we should be grateful for ANYTHING they choose to give us. But employment should should be viewed as it really is, and how it started back in ancient history; one person NEEDS the workers to make more whatever they're producing because they can't do enough by themselves or can't do it alone, or they need workers to literally keep their commodity from being destroyed. Like security guards, or if they have too few workers to harvest the crops rotting in the fields. Employers don't rule us like a bunch of pathetic pawns, they NEED US TO DO THEIR WORK. We are agreeing to be paid to do THEIR WORK. Don't forget this.
Yeah, thats kinda the whole point, if your job doesnt pay enough, leave for one that does, if enough people leave, the job pays more, then you go back or stay at your own job
@@LucianoMas-t7b Your argument assumes a perfectly competitive labor market where workers have easy access to better-paying jobs and the mobility to switch jobs frequently. In reality, many workers face significant barriers to changing jobs. Factors like limited job availability in certain regions, lack of access to transportation, and insufficient training or education can make it difficult for workers to leave low-paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage to something more livable would help ensure that even those who can’t easily switch jobs can still earn a living wage. As for the job's wages increasing if enough people leave, that's a rather idealistic outcome. What makes you think it would turn out that way? It's just as likely that the business will shut down because nobody wants to work for a company that never pays its workers anything more than poverty-level wages. Here's another perspective: If a company's business model requires that they pay their workers poverty-level wages, then that business shouldn’t exist. The free market swings both ways.
No minimum wage means employers can get away with paying you 20 cents an hour and there ain't shit you can do about it cause every other job will just follow along with it. Minimum wage shouldn't be jacked up to 15 dollars an hour but there sure as hell shouldn't be no minimum wage.
If most employers only paid 20 cents a hr, that would actually hurt them as no one will be able to afford their products and services. Also, most employers already pay above minimum wage.
Trust me without minimal wage all the jobs I've ever worked for would pay next to nothing. I'd bet they could they would pay 50 cents an hour. Minimal wage is an overall good.
Why should we trust you? Minimum wage vanishment would make low skilled workes competing against each other, while minimum wage law sets a lot of ppl will get no job while those who get a job will have a better wage income. It's all about less money for more ppl (without minimum wage) or more money for less ppl (with minimum wage). Thank god if you don't get unemployed...
I agree, the issue is that these "supplemental income" jobs have become "breadwinner" jobs for allot of people due to economic changes. I mean, 50 years ago no one over 25 worked at grocery stores unless they were total burnouts, skilled labor (butcher for example), or the managers. Now my local grocery store is filled with regular staff that need to live off that job and are all in their 30s
Dylan Houlihan- Kinda depends on where you live. America didn't always have those jobs filled with young people, and while that may of been the case 50 years ago, there were also well paying factory jobs for people who didn't have higher education degrees.Those have largely been lost to mechanization so there aren't many options for people who don't have higher education now a days.
*IF* you can get a full time job at that rate (40 hours/week) that means you make 480$/month. Where I live the best you can get is a crappy studio apartment in a bad neighbourhood for 300$/month, utilities not included. I find it unlikely you can feed yourself and pay all your utilities for 180$. You will also have to walk everywhere. Of course I'm assuming you don't receive welfare or handouts. Also once something unexpected happens good luck coming up with money to pay for it.
I am kind of surprised you didn't view this from an anti-competitive standpoint. The higher labour costs choke out smaller businesses while larger companies are able to absorb the costs better. Hence why amazon lobbies for minimum wage increases as the larger market share gained from failed smaller stories outweighs the increased labour costs.
A couple of thoughts: - raising the minimum wage will only serve to increase the costs of goods and services. Since the cost of living would probably increase with the increase in minimum wages, the increase in wages would effectively be nulled. So all that is accomplished is keeping people in the same place while making things more expensive (inflation). - Relatively very few people make minimum wage with no benefits as a full-time career. That vast majority of minimum wage workers are students working part-time jobs. Therefore increasing the minimum wage does not solve any big-picture issues.
I don’t get the argument that raising taxes on gas, reduces the amount of gas sold. Gasoline is an inelastic good; so people are pretty munched forced to buy it, so they can commute to work. Even if gas prices doubled. You’d still buy the same amount of gas, Bc you still have to commute to make a living. Although after a very large amount of price increase; people would eventually switch to different types of cars. But thats due to the fact that gas isn’t perfectly inelastic, just very inelastic.
Not quite sure about the arguments here. Mentioning the stated points below to try to understand them better: 1. "Rising minimum way drives up unemployment"- theoretically sounds fair. If the price of a product goes up, down goes its supply. However, I think this characterisation for vital resources of production is inaccurate. See, if the price of an essential raw material (say, any chemical involved in production process) goes up, companies don't stop buying it or buy less of it. They understand that they NEED this raw material in order to manufacture goods. Abruptly decreasing its purchase would throttle their production capabilities. Less produce means less sales means less income means less profits for its executives & shareholders. All is sad :( In fact, the examples that this video takes to illustrate the dynamic between price & demand are all 'necessary' goods, whose demand in fact remains quite INELASTIC. An increase in price of cigarettes doesn't mean you'll be able to smoke less, given that smoking is an addiction. Similarly, an increase in price of fuel doesn't ever drive down the usage of fuel. Consider this, if gas prices increase tomorrow, will it mean that you'll stop taking your car to work and instead take the train or bus? No, that doesn't necessary happen. Likewise, an increase in cost of labour or talent doesn't necessarily lead to a decrease in its demand because just like gasoline & cigarettes, labour is an essential resource for production which cannot be easily replaced. So companies will still need to retain their existing workforce and hire more in the future order to atleast maintain their current levels of profitability and also grow these profits in the future. So what do they do? In order to offset this rise in cost of raw material and subsequent rise in cost of production, companies simply raise their prices in the short term. In the long term they would either look for cheaper alternatives or try to optimise their production process better for reducing their expenses in other areas. Another point is that, given that a minimum wage increase is going to increase costs for all sellers, it's not like someone else can undercut the others by offering lower prices due to cheaper labour (unless of course they shift more jobs to overseas, in which case they'd need to factor the additional costs of logistics as well, and is applicable only to large businesses and not the majority of small businesses that make up the economy, as this video mentions) So, for a critical resource such as labour or executive talent which cannot be suddenly replaced (and in fact companies want the best of it under their roofs at any cost), companies would either try to reduce the overall cost by tweaking employment contracts to take away possible perks & benefits (in the end, they will always want to screw their employees to keep more money for themselves) or they would pass on these increased costs to the consumers. 2. Yes, what all this would theoretically lead to, is consumer price increase. Since companies will be forced to pass on this input cost increase to consumers in order to maintain their own profitability, it will be the consumers who shall have to bear the final price. Theoretically, this will lead to an inflationary situation. But we'd have to look at similar junctures in the past when minimum wage was increased to see if it actually caused a subsequent increase in market prices and inflation. If this were the case, no country would ever increase the minimum wages for its population, would it? I'm sure there are other ways to offset the increased input costs for companies which countries would usually adopt. 3. Would a higher minimum wage lead to decreased hiring of less skilled or people with disabilities? I strongly doubt this. Is there any data to back this claim? Of course in the past, some racist industries in Australia or loony KKK communities may have tried this tactic, but is there any evidence to show that this actually works? Basically, an increase in wage rates increases the cost of human resources of all types of people. It affects companies who are looking to hire all people whether they are from the African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, differently-abled, women, trans or any other community. All talent becomes dearer and more expensive. So why would this specifically affect the hiring of people from marginalised communities only? A skilled African-American worker shall command the same minimum wage as a similarly skilled Caucasian worker, so I don't quite understand why/how this shall affect the former more than the latter.. Yes of course it shall become more expensive (comparatively) to hire African-American workers, but so will be the case for hiring Caucasian workers or any other community, so companies will not really be compelled to hire any one community over another. If anything hiring the Caucasian worker could be a bigger loss to the company, (if the additional elements of salary are higher for a Caucasian person than the African-American). So it might actually lead to an increase in employment for marginalised communities, in case companies do look to reduce costs. 4. Stop taking 20% income on taxation: The oldest advice ever given in modern day economics! Just reduce taxes! Or eliminate taxes and everything will be okay! Again, not sure how this helps. Reducing taxation negatively affects everything that a govt can do, from building roads and bridges to providing any services to the people. So, not sure that is the right solution to the problem of stagnating real income, a problem which is clearly the result of other economic factors that need to be solved instead. Happy to hear diverging thoughts rooted in facts! :)
20% in taxes thats cute😂 50-75% in sweden depending how you count and that is for the average worker not the rich. And also the correct minimum wage zero and also a law that makes it illegal to have someone hired for nothing but not a minimum.
No, because this is kinda bullshit. In theory it's correct, but only in theory. This knowledge comes straight from the books, without taking into account little details like the situation with cheap sweatshop labor existing in places like China is exactly because they do not have a minimum wage. They have the cheapest labor because they don't pay people shit. It's a perfect example of what life for the lower class is like without oversight that protects workers. This video reeks on all sides of middle class student who's not really had a taste of actual life yet, let alone knows what it's like having a job at minimum wage or just above and having to pay rent and all that stuff that comes with life. I'm not 'accusing' the video's maker(s) of being middle class students, I really have no clue, but that's what it feels like.
Darkfoxx Bunyip If these sweatshops are so bad why do people keep working there? Are they being held against their will? The truth is buddy those jobs makes them better of as in without those jobs their lives would be actually worse than it is now. Also median wages in China have been steadily rising. Every society has to go through a cheap labour phase to reach the current standards of the first world.
"why do people keep working there?" Yeah, why don't they just choose not to work, become a beggar in the street! It's completely their own choice, and responsibility that no other options are available between sweatshop and starvation. They should've just been born in a better life, riiight? Dick. As I've said in previous comments about minimum wages and social healthcare on this channel's video's, they are certainly a good thing. We're not talking about just money and economics, those dollars represent human lives in millions upon millions of cases. Do you wanna go back to that cheap labor phase? I don't. I prefer the system that has the minimum wage over the system that exploits the people. I profit from it, and if you're living in the sort of luxury that makes you talk like that, you CERTAINLY have profited from it without even realizing. Your life would be massively different if it weren't for those bad bad things like minimum wages. I can tell you it'd suck more, not less, at least believe me on that one.
In my home state of Ohio, the minimum wage is $8.55. So let's say you work 40 hours a week. 8.55 x 40 x 4= $1,368. We pay 12.5% in federal, state, and local taxes, which brings the final net pay per month to $1,197. Which would make the annual income of a minimum wage worker in Ohio working full time $14,364. Therefore, a minimum wage worker is in poverty, and cannot afford to live. Ohio's poverty rate, or employees living off of minimum wage/disability benefits? 14.8%. Now, I understand this is just one state, rather than the entire country, but it does call into question the efficiency of minimum wage to help its' citizens, as the reason why the minimum wage does not help is because the week before minimum wage goes up, all the stores and restaurants raise their prices. The week before our minimum wage here went from $8.10 to $8.55 is when the price of a loaf of bread went from 89 cents to $1.29.
Thank goodness you pointed out that a national minimum wage is just a socialist tool to advance the destruction of the US economy . Sadly , if the proponents actually cared for lower wage earners the would read some of the newest research that states minimum wage is something that should be set locally based on economy , industry , median wage , etc. I don't remember which university did the study ( I think it was in Georgia but don't quote me on that ) . Its rather interesting .
What is the legal minimum wage in the Scandinavian countries, so popular with many US leftists? Denmark, Norway and Sweden has no legal minimum wage (except some areas, prone to fraudulent practices).
It doesn't "prevent" it in the sense that it makes it illegal directly, it destroys the incentive to people with lower skills and raises the barrier to entry for social outsiders. Imagine that you have a job that needs to be done... Say you want someone to mow your lawn next weekend. There are a bunch of neighborhood kids around who would be willing to do it for $20, but you also know that they're not likely to be very thorough because they don't have much experience and they're kids. On the other hand, you could hire a professional crew to come out and do it, but they'll cost you $50. Right now, the kids' inexperience is balanced against the cost of hiring the pros. Now say someone in your local government says "Hey, that's not fair! Everybody who mows lawns should get paid the same!" and mandates that the minimum price for hiring someone to mow your lawn is $40. Suddenly, with the difference in the cost between the kids and the professional crew being very small, and the fact that you might even be able to negotiate a pro crew down $5-10, there's simply no incentive for you to hire the neighborhood kids to do it when you could get way more qualified people for the same price. This is the major problem with minimum wage. If you double the current federal minimum wage and bring it up to $15/hr, all the people who thought taking a risk on hiring young, inexperienced kids -- and, frankly, especially those from poorer areas, those who don't speak English so well, and others who would fit into minority categories that fall outside the mainstream culture -- was worth it at $7.25 are now going to be rethinking that position. Why hire a 16 year old high school drop out when you could now hire a college student with 4-5 years of working experience? Why hire the college student when you can hire the young professional who has 6-10 years of general working experience? Raising this barrier means that people with lower skills and lower social status are going to suddenly find that their prospects drop like a hot stone.
@@FEEonline "Raising this barrier means that people with lower skills and lower social status are going to suddenly find that their prospects drop like a hot stone." I'm afraid I'm still not following. I'm seeing plenty of these lower skills/status people being hired, and people with better education not advancing with better jobs OR better pay. Or is my lack of understanding coming from living in a state where the min. wage is ALREADY at $15/hr?
It actual origin is Hammurabi's code with lines like this: 271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and eighty ka of corn per day.
They're telling white lies and half-truths. This video is extremely misleading. Do actual research, because this ain't it. It's propaganda by a conservative leaning channel that is clearly trying to do as they always do and pretend to be the common sense innocent voice, but there absolutely agenda here
Young Alexander You'll never convince some people (who love to complain about cost of living) that taxes and regulations are bad for the little guy too.
It's true people just do not understand the most basic economic principles. I would say the average critic of the economic system has 0 economic knowledge whatsoever.
If the local governments would ease restrictions on building new housing, the increase in supply would compensate and lower the price. If property and estate taxes were lowered, low and middle income families could more easily afford to pass their property on to their offspring who could continue to benefit from the hard work of their parents.
A quick point, minimum wage increases also raise the price of goods, since it takes labour to produce any goods. This in turn increases the cost of living, defeating the purpose of raising the minimum in the first place.
Why does a loaf of bread cost $3 when it was a dime in the 1950s? The cost of sunshine and rain didn't go up but the wages of the Teamsters that truck the wheat to the mill, the flour to the bakery, and the bread to the store damn sure did.
Ok, so first of all, the assumption that raising the minimum wage leads to unemployment is demonstrably false, Milton Friedman was clearly wrong on this and the examples I have seen where this appears to be the case are really weak correlations at best. Data in the UK for instance shows absolutely no relationship between unemployment and minimum wage increases (which have more than doubled since its introduction!). Well why is this the case? In a free market economy people exchange money for goods and services of others, but the extent to which they can do this is determined by how much money they have to spend of course. Now if the lowest paid segment of society has more money to spend, they then can buy more goods and services causing economic growth. Arguably one of the causes of the great depression was not that there was a shortage of everything but rather people lacked the money (purchasing power) to acquire stuff (Waddill Catchings and William Trufant Foster "The Road to Plenty.") In fact even analysis that criticizes minimum wage increase like "The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco" argue that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment by 1% (note others say there is no correlation at all), one could argue the subsequent increase in living standards overall outweighs that 1% increase in unemployment if that is actually to be believed! This video is painfully simplistic to be blunt and not really based in reality.
The problem is that if a company can get away with paying a dollar a day, they will. Then you wont be able to get a job that you can live on without a degree or years of experience. Not to mention that would lower the price of ALL labor.
Not Marcus Bad yea but there's no point everything else will just get more expansive for example in Chicago everything is very expensive to me because in Illinois their minimum wage is almost double where I am ( Wisconsin) so raising it is just a waist of time and pointless
Another problem with high minimum wage, it makes the jobs of those who do keep the job way harder. Take grocery stores for example. They're forced to cut staffing due to rising labor costs, but the amount of work needed to run the store is unchanged. Now, the people left behind have to do more work. Wages went up 20%, now you have to give 120%.
Do you actually think they're laying people off because wages went up and not corporate greed? Then why is it happening in so many places were the minimum wage hasn't gone up? Why are so many companies trying to get doctorate holders with 50 years of experience for minimum wage? Because corporations are greedy and poorly run because they only think of the shareholders and their own bonuses. They're PURPOSEFULLY keeping their stores understaffed because they make more money and they know desperate people will still work that 150%. Why do you think they lose their minds when people have stopped biting at their badly baited hooks? Their exploitation isn't working as well anymore
What I miss here is that the video doesn't give any evidence that the minorities are unemployed BECAUSE of the minimum wage. Just because some guy lots of years ago wrote something in that sense doesn't mean it's true (than again, I understand that it's difficult to give detailed explanation in three minute video). Also, I don't get why unemployment of 16 year old people is a problem. Where I live, 16 years old people generally don't have to work to help sustain their family or anything like that, so where's the problem? That young people won't have money to get Iphones? Then again, maybe it's different in America. And concerning that "raising the price of labour..." part, there is a difference - the way I see it, while people can do without cigarettes or even gas, they can't do without labour. So, when the price of labour gets higher, they can either 1) hire less people and therefore provide less products or services. Thus, a hole is left in the market that will probably get filled by another smaller employers who will hire the people fired from the aforementioned businesses. So basically, the bussinesses will get smaller and more numerous. 2) collapse since they won't be able to be profitable - thus making room in the market for other businesses that will adapt better and fill the hole, repeating the scenario 1). Or 3), they will just pay their employees more - I seriously doubt that the few more dollars they'll have to pay will make all bussinesses suddenly unprofitable - to further the comparison mentioned in the video, the fact that cigarettes or gas is more expensive doesn't mean people will stop smoking or driving. Just the fact that your bussiness, while still profitable, makes you a few less bucks than before, doesn't mean you'll go "shit, I now make (random eg.) 40 dollars of profit instead of 55, guess I'll shut my whole bussiness down". The only problem I can think of is that when the price of labour grow, the businesses (which are, as most people are, naturally greedy) will set a higher cost for their products and services to compensate for the loss made by higher labour costs. But you can counter that by raising the minimal wage continuously - in Czech Republic, we have minimum wage growing continually for almost 30 years (www.kurzy.cz/kalkulacka/minimalni-mzda/), on of the lowest unemployment range (www.dw.com/en/eurozone-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-rate-since-2008/a-49427704) and as far as I know, prices aren't generally much higher. And I don't think the argument you made in the other comment about Australia and their 'not-really-minimum wage' ("Australia's minimum wage laws actually fairly explicitly account for the problem identified in this video") holds here, because if that's the case, then solution to the problem is still higher minimum wage, just with reasonable exceptions, and not no higher minimum wage at all. So uhm...think of this what you will.
The objective is to move the capital from the top .5% back into circulation. More specifically to move capital into the hands of individuals that will use it productivly. This gives capital value and is the lubricant for the economy. Minimum wage and higher taxes on the top .5% are the current popular ideas. They aren't perfect.
Just because an idea is popular does not mean that it is correct. Minimum wage laws actually help to consolidate competition even more to the top .5% as you say, because their institutions are the only ones that have the capital to be efficient enough to pay those higher wages while keeping costs low. If you want to move capital down to the lower classes give them the opportunity to climb the economic ladder, and become more productive, so that they can bargain for a higher wage.
minimum wage protects people from being scammed by low-paying jobs. Not everyone can participate in outsourcing to other jobs. Research is expensive. Also, you have to consider the fact that there are polices inside many companies that financially incentivize people to stay. When people find a new job that pays higher, they have to waste large amounts of time calculating weather it pays better to keep their current benefits or get the new job. If there is minimum wage, they would waste less time because their pay is guaranteed to offset some of the benefits they lose therefore less time is wasted contemplating the change in jobs. When no minimum wage is instated, large companies would justify their actions of paying little by saying that "paying more" is "minimum wage" concluding that "less pay is good" >>"but small business would have the resources to beat them" There are other alternatives to cutting pay below a minimum wage to get the resources. Also, wouldn't other business use the opportunity of no minimum wage to exploit this. People cannot detect the exploitation because minimum wage give people self-worth that would have prevented the exploitation. >>"'but it makes more competition to force big business to treat people better" This argument dose not consider the fact that the small business could be secretly supporting the big business. Considering the above, would you want to work for a small business that promises "to beat the big business" Neither would many other people, especially, considering the fact that small business could be lying. >>"but small business could offer better pay" In a world with minimum wage, that still happens. >>"but a small business paying less than minimum wage could end up beating the big business in pay, later" It has been proven to not work. There is no guarantee in success, since the small business can just declare bankruptcy to give excuses to not pay more. A struggling small business is incentivized to not succeed because bankruptcy is cheaper than both doubling down and cutting pay. There are lots of failed startups using unpaid internship and low frequency pay that also disprove the argument. Also small business is much less efficient than big business in operations, and customers have to pay more in travel to support small business. I would not want a world with 100s of "small Walmart's" in every small town.
Ok the main problem I have with, what I’m supposing your saying in abolishing the minimum wage, is wage leverage. Theoretically people could be working for 25 cents… Since there is the wreaking of labor unions and Threat of Automation.
I can see having some sort of minimum wage to stop people from paying ten cents and hour or something like that, but doing something like 15-25 dollars is nuts. That Tacobell kid working half time who doesn't even know a burrito from a taquito does not deserve 15 an hour.
...in Australia, the minimum wage is 3x higher than in America. Our unemployment rate is only 1% higher than yours....
Plus, people are already paying more in America. Only you call it "tipping"
In Australia, we pay for people's wages by working that into our pricing structure. It doesn't actually cost the employer any more, it costs the customers more. And since you already tip in America, it wouldn't make any difference
That is incorrect. Australia's minimum wage laws actually fairly explicitly account for the problem identified in this video by only applying to certain industries and increasing to the top limit based on the age of the worker.
For example, a fast food worker who is 16 years old would currently be subject to a minimum wage of AUS$10.39/hour. If that same employee was over 21, their minimum would be AUS$20.79/hour.
calculate.fairwork.gov.au/CheckPay/Summary
Converted to USD, the 16 year old's minimum wage is $7.43, which is not substantially different from the US federal minimum. The 21+ year old base would be $14.87 USD. Notably, that's less than the $16 you claimed in any case.
Imagine, though, what would happen if the $14.87/hour rate applied to the 16 year olds. There would be far less incentive to employ them when more experienced adults could be employed at the same rate. If Australia raised its minimum wage the way American activists want, they would see the same kinds of youth unemployment issues.
Moreover, racism against aboriginal people is still rather extreme in Australia, and undoubtedly minimum wage laws affect that population in nearly the same way as described above. And indeed, the data supports this point. Aboriginal people have a much higher unemployment rate than white Australians, and currently stands at between 16-23% in different areas. Their labor participation rate is also extremely low... 44% are not even looking for work, which is double that of non-Aborigines.
www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/aboriginal-employment-jobs-careers
So the point very much stands. Raising minimum wage rates can have profoundly negative consequences for young people and minorities.
Also, restaurants are the only businesses exempt from standard minimum wage in the US based on tipping. We don't generally tip outside of that context. It's a little weird, to be honest, but it is a very small part of the whole picture.
Ok, that seems fair
But in the name of education, I live in a town where there is a very high aboriginal community. We have plenty of jobs that can, legally, only be filled by aboriginals.
Many of them go for months without a single applicant. Some have been jobs I would love to have applied for, but unfortunately, I'm not aboriginal, so I could not apply for them.
I've met many hard working Aboriginals, but I've met many more who were drunk at 11am. I've got good friends who are aboriginal. I've also only ever been robbed by aboriginals.
It's a complicated issue, and there is a LOT more involved than simply being racism
@@kjs8719 life does tend to be a bit more complicated.
kylejiahsmith, minorities in America would say it’s still the fault of systemic racism, possibly even the racism of decades ago. That’s how affirmative action is still justified. That and the idea that because racism still exists in America, there’s no way for them to compete on a level playing field, so naturally, they need positions set aside for them.
I don’t agree with that mentality, btw, but that’s the exact mentality of liberals who fight for greater minimum wage. Plus they’d call you a racist for blaming anything on aboriginals.
2:14 "Well you could stop taking 20% of their income through taxation..."
"Besides THAT!" LMFAO
We could split from the country the same way we split from Britain
Look at the effective tax rate tho those employees actually have a negative rate
Poor people: NOOOO YOU CANT JUST TAKE MONEY I NEED TO FIGHT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND GIVE FOREIGN NATIONS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHILE 1/4 CHILDREN STARVE IN THE US ALONE!
US government: haha bullets go bang bang!
@@Dorkeydaze the other 2 of 4 children die of starvation together.
1 of 4 are alive
If they don't get taxes then how is the government going to get money to fund schools, hospitals, and so on?
How much do you pay your workers? Oh, we only use unpaided interns.
Truth.
Rend 🏅Congratulations, you’ve just earned a gold medal in mental gymnastics.
@Rend
I’ve seen unpaid interns at Fortune 500 companies. If the company can fill a position with little to no pay offered, there’s little incentive to raise wages.
It’s the primary reason IMO that wages are stagnant. Jobs are jobs and people will fill them, regardless of wage fairness. Benevolence and business conduct do not mix. I’m amazed that people think they do.
You're completely ignoring the fact that those interns are acquiring knowledge and experience in their industry, and once capable, can leverage their skills to companies that would pay them a good wage. You're expecting the employers to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to wages, but if you actually had a sought after skill, that you were proficient in, you would know that, you get paid more, if you negotiate your wage. Not, because you exist and want the money.
@@OverCooked10 exept the majority of the time companies abuse unpaids interns and use them as nothing more than glorified secretary's, teaching them nothing about the job they're interning for
And in turn those interns gain experience to get great jobs afterwards. Also, they agreed to that opportunity with that in mind. Don't remember interns being enslaved.
Hm, I've never thought of labour as being a purchasable good before. It actually makes a lot of sense in that context.
As my stepfather said, "Everything is a commodity, including YOU".
In the end any job is no different from paying Timmy 5 dollars to mow the lawn. If Timmy suddenly demands 50 you mow it yourself. If Timmy complains to the Homeowners Association and they pass a rule saying only Timmy is allowed to mow the lawn on penalty of 45 dollars for every infractions. You mow it yourself once, pay the fine and then sell your house to move to a less commie neighborhood.
@@am5455 Detroit decay in a nutshell
Oh ya, when your contracted by an employer they are buying your time off of you for you to do work they don't want to do.
You are a product, and have been bought for labor in your field. How does that make you feel?
It's both sad and funny that the very people who believe carbon taxes should be used to decrease the use of fossil fuels do not believe that increasing the cost of low skilled labor will decrease the use of low skilled labor.
Let me fix that for you. With an increase in minimum wage, teenagers and other potential employees with little or no job skills will be completely priced out of the job market. Look at the minimum wage increase in Seattle. The first tier didn't help. The second tier cost minimum wage employees an average of $125 per month. That's according to the local university economics department that the city hired to prove what geniuses they were for hiking the minimum wage. For someone making minimum wage, $125 per month is a very big deal. Seattle's full minimum wage hikes still haven't fully gone into effect and based on what we've seen so far, it's going to be very bad news for the people these politicians promised to help.
You seem to think that central economic planners can make economic decisions better than the market. The USSR tried that and it didn't work so well. Do you really think that city councils can do a better job of selecting the optimal minimal wage for everyone, as opposed to allowing employers and employees to freely negotiate for the appropriate wages in each individual case?
If I was entering the job market, I'd be hopping mad that my city council set a minimum wage that prevented me from getting the entry level job that I need to learn some work skills and demonstrate my reliability and worth. You seem to think there is some delay before the workers' increased wages stimulate the local economy but I've already debunked that popular optimistic myth. The take home wages of Seattle's minimum wage employees have gone DOWN since their city council increased the minimum wage, according to the council's own study. Rather than stimulating Seattle's economy, the increased minimum wage law is a big wet blanket that is dragging down Seattle's economy, and that effect will only worsen as the effects of the law continue. Unfortunately, the politicians are too arrogant to admit that they made a mistake, so these employees will continue to suffer.
Most of them recognize that raising the price of labor decreases the demand, they just accept this as a fair tradeoff.
It's immoral to use the force of government to interfere with any contracts between employers and employees even when a case might be made that more people benefit from a minimum wage than are harmed by it. I'd be mad if a minimum wage priced me out of my first job regardless of whether someone who already had a job got a government mandated non-merit raise. However, $15 per hour is a net aggregate loss for low skilled employees in even the most upscale market. In other words, it hurts more people than it helps. I guess it's good for companies selling automation, and governments in the business of redistributing wealth and taking their cut off the top.
It's not immoral if the political community owns the land and resources based on an agreement, i.e. contract, like a Constitution. Then the people, who are the owners, can establish whatever rules for regulating how property is occupied, utilized, transferred, whatever, just like a private entity. If a private entity is free to do whatever they want with their own property, then the same logic applies to publicly owned property. Your basic argument amounts to "if it's consensual, it's not immoral". Well, we consented to the Constitution and it's various laws and legislation, and so whatever the owners of the resources decide to do with them is justified and moral.
Is the voice of reason FreedomToons
I’m going to take that as a yes.
It the opening scene it said “with Samus”
General Anderson yes
420 likes.
Well every time I have a moral dilemma, he appears on my right shoulder while Joseph Stalin appears on the left.
20% taxes at minimum wage? I wish. Depending on how much I work at Burger King. 25-28% in Michigan. You're welcome. Hope the roads here will be better soon. (Never going to happen)
How about we tax the rich? Instead of the worker? Yeah I think that would be better but y’all wouldn’t really want that huh. Because public infrastructure is bad
@@wyattwilliamson5896 rich people pay the vast majority of taxes already, fyi. The top half of income earners pay 97% of all tax revenue. The top 1% alone bears 40.1% of the tax burden (and earns 20.9% of the income, in case you were thinking it was proportionate).
taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/
@@FEEonline I have literally never heard a liberal respond to this, not even AOC. Mot a good, bad, or indifferent one. I genuinely wonder why.
@@sinthalis I'll add another little conundrum for "tax the rich" folks.
Often, I am told to look to the Nordic countries as a model for progressive taxation. None of them seem to realize that they actually have a *more* even distribution of tax rates - that is, the poor and middle class pay higher taxes relative to rich people in their societies - than the US.
taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/
@@FEEonline I just like to tell those people that the rich already pay more then most people make in a year in taxes some by multiple years worth even with the top 1% paying more in taxes then most will see in their lifetime
FreedomToons got to animate Thomas Sowell, nice.
And using an Australian accent too!
Only to people who are incapable of grasping logic.
@gespilk proof?
@gespilk Proof?
@gespilk You say "Minimum wage is a way to say that if you're employed you should be able to have some level of dignity measured by your living standard provided by that wage."
If you want to talk about relativistic reasoning just read that paragraph again. None of what you said is objectively true.
Thomas Sowell and this video provided data to support their views.
So again I ask you to provide evidence that Thomas Sowell is an "intellectual charlatan".
Economics is so fascinating.
Things that seem intuitively advantageous can actually be devastating in the long run.
No they aren't
How fucking convenient of an excuse.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
@@someguy0204yes they are
you're type of guy who don't see human behind numbers
Walmart: "We pay $16 an hour to new hires."
Also Walmart: "We can only give you 14 hours this week, not 36."
but we still expect you to do 36 hours worth of work in those 14
One good point I have seen made is if the government raises taxes on items to discourage things like cigarette usage what does a tax on income do...
Shtep werking
Most people can’t choose to work fewer hours or quit their jobs because taxes are higher. If anything, you’d work more to earn the same amount of money. Your logic only holds if the person in question is rich and/or self-employed, or if compensation can be shifted from salary to benefits (thereby avoiding income taxes).
@@azaria5419 His logic still works because as you said, its harder to earn the same amount of money if you are being taxed and the government is basically forcing you to either work more or move to another job
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
Everybody loves raising the minimum wage, but you know who loves it the most? Walmart, and amazon
Unions love it more seeing as they typically have their rates tied to MW. Whatever the percentage increase in the MW is then applied to the union wages. Quite a racket.
@@mr.bozobozo5504 Which is why Walmart and Amazon love MW laws. They don't want to pay it themselves, but they love the idea of EVERY business having to - because it pushes small business out of the market. At the end of the day Walmart just increases the prices to cover the higher cost of labor. Only now they can increase it more than the MW did - there is less competition they have to worry about.
Jeff Bezos has been openly defending the exact same $15 minimum wage people who criticize him online defend.
It's almost as if minimum wage increases, as well as more regulations and taxes, won't negatively affect the billionaires who can afford them. Only the little guy desperately trying to survive the competition with them.
Truth, their competition can't afford but they can.
Facts
I can't watch too much Seamus Coughlin at once, or I'll go Libertarian.
It already happened to me
What’s wrong with that? Those are the smart people
@Firelord Eliteast67 that seems to be the choice today really. Even if you were to be more of a centrist, you will still get called either a communist by libertarians or a capitalistic pig by communists. All in all, i think that economically speaking libertarianism makes more sense , and seems logical so thats why i choose it. Plus i come from an ex socialist country so i have a deep hatered for the system.
Libertarians are idiots
You always gotta check the ulterior motives of a politician when they want to pass a law
You also have to check the ulterior motives of a misleading propaganda channel that claims to speak the simple truth but picks and choose what they present very carefully and laces it with half-truths and leaves a lot out
If you really care about raising the cost of labor,
You can get rid of legal entrepreneur bottlenecks to increase demand for labor. This would raise the intersection (price) on a S/D graph without lowering supply like a minimum wage accidentally does
2 years later and it's mostly self checkout in my area stores. Entry level jobs are vanishing.
And yet minimum wage had nothing to do with that. Low paying labor opportunities are disappearing but prices only go up. Curious.
That's a pretty good Thomas Sowell impression.
Plot twist, it is he
I saw the thumbnail and thought these guys ripped off freedom toons, but the. It said “with seamus”
Wait...
"Seamus"? The same one from FreedomToons?
Anonymous71475 yep that same one
I believe the last time my country raised the minimum wage, landlords also raised the price for renting. The buying power of the dollar never really increases, as the poor earns more money.
That's why you cap rent
@@martletkay and if you cap rent, less rentals are built which causes an increase in homelessness.
Yay youve made everyone's money worth less, pushed many people out of work, and now pushed even more people on to the street
Another thing people seem to overlook about minimum wage is that it is generally paid to entry level positions. Most people don't continually work for the minimum. They gain skills and experience and move up to a higher wage, then a new group enter at minimum wage. Yet people act like everyone on minimum wage will stay at that rate their entire lives and it needs to be increased for them to survive.
The issue is that nowadays people are stuck at minimum wage level jobs for life. It is disturbing watching as the average age of all the fastfood/store employees just keeps going up. These people are stuck in the entry-level jobs because getting new skills is too expensive (tuition) and experience isn't valued without education for higher-level jobs anymore.
I haven't noticed that, but I believe it would be highly dependent the economy of a specific area. In fact I rarely see the same person in an entry level position for more than a year, and often, far less than that. However, I am fortunate enough to live in an area where high school dropouts can, regularly do, earn in the top 5-10% of the national earnings.
To be fair, though, I would not be surprised to see statistics back up what you said.
you forget things being deskilled due to technology as well. Even the fast food kiosks take away jobs.
It doesn’t help we have all these old people from the baby boomers that haven’t retired yet, and are taking jobs that would generally be taken by younger people.
Bobby Ok cool a reasonable minimum wage, $10-$11, as opposed to $15. Most employers pay around this much anyway. Not sure about how the tipped workers go about, though I hear mixed reactions.
Job progression helps too; should be more skilled or supervising to an extent after a few years, though unfortunately some employers want this to be free labor, or too cheap to hire new workers and set them up to fail.
"You could stop taking 20% of their income"
Who could come up with a more logical solution?
me!111 omg.. the way to do it is to take 10% instead !!11!!!11 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
@@iheartoofs or 0%
remember income tax is a very new idea, only slightly over 100years old
They are not "unpaid interns", they're "volunteers"!
In my country business started to adopt the minimum wage as "proper" wage. As in, if you'd have otherwise been payed 15$ an hour after implementing a minimum wage of 8$ the wages for your line of work would subsequently be reduced to 8$ even if the prices of the goods you either produce or purchase don't change or worse yet, increase in price.
All this talk about minimum wage really overlooks the issue of how more and more people are reliant on massive companies to make a living. In the 1950's, about 25% of Americans were self-employed outside of the farming sector. By the mid 1960's, that number had shrunk to 11% and further shrunk to 8% by the 2000's and dropped again to 7% by the mid-2010's. Sadly, any information beyond that is hard to come by, but the fact people aren't talking more about this is really concerning to me.
I think getting rid of the minimum wage would not hurt at all.
My home state of NJ has an $8.60 minimum wage and currently every job is offering at least $10, even the crappy teenager jobs.
If wages really were a race to the bottom then why can't I find any paying the minimum?
Fappetizer not all states are that well off.
So Emerald Solace you think to limit the number of business by the high cost of operations is going to make your poor States better off? 10 employees at 5 an hour or 5 employees at 10 an hour which one puts more money into the economy? Normally it would be equal except we have welfare and the 5 unemployed cost everyone money to do nothing.
Barskor1 I’m saying each state should be handled differently. The us is too damn large to even be able to take care of its own shit. The standard of living is different in many places, and the minimum wage too.
Barskor1 nothing is as easy as you think. Maybe think a little harder.
Localized governance is best and nothing is more local than the individual.
Minimum wage increase -> people have more money -> demand increases -> prices increase -> people ask for higher minimum wage -> repeat
@@victoneter Exactly.
Minimum wage increases lead to economic crises AND more minimum wage increases.
How much do you pay your workers?
"Oh they're unpaid interns."
OH SHIT!
ITS THOMAS SOWELL
gespilk Care to explain...?
gespilk If you want to do well and are willing to put in effort, a free market is the only way you can change your position. Every other system leaves you trapped where you're born more or less.
gespilk The true nature of of the free market is voluntary exchange between people. When government gets involved with special favors that’s not a free market.
gespilk No. you’re wrong. Everyone gets richer with voluntary trade. Every trade must benefit both sides otherwise the trade never happens. So, again, to become wealthy in a capitalist economy you need to always give customers products and services they want at a price they are willing to pay. Your competitors want profits also so they will look for way to produce better low cost products in order to win over new customers. So there is a tendency over time for cheaper better made products. Those lower priced products make consumers wealthier because they will have more money left over to buy other products or services.
Here is just one example.
Mainframe computer $4.7 million in 1970; today PCs 20x faster with more memory sell for less than $500 with accessories.
Are all consumers wealthier because computers are much cheaper and better quality? You bet they are!! Yet computer manufacturers still make millions or billions in profits every year.
gespilk I’ve just shown how voluntary trade leads to both consumers and producers becoming wealthier. I also gave you the computer example showing prices dropping over the years saving consumers large amounts of money leading to higher standards of living for all. You say the market makes poorer and kills them and yet you give no examples. I win. I’m right and you are wrong but won’t acknowledge this. I wish you luck in your little dream world you live in. BTW, the only way other than voluntary transactions for consumer and producers to deal with each other is with the use of a gun. This is what you favor. There is no other choice. It’s either voluntary or a gun.
When the minimum wage was implemented, it was stated to be a "living wage". Which is what many supporters of minimum wage increase reference, since the living wage in America is at least twice that in most places.
You should have mentioned that an increased cost of labor causes an increase in the price of goods and services which in turn would lead to a decline in the overall purchasing power of the people earning above minimum wage. More than likely this would result in a larger decrease in the purchasing power of income than there would be in the increased income of low-skilled workers.
Increase in prices are allot lower than the minimum wage increase is because labor is only a fraction of operating costs. Plenty of stores just eat the new cost but if you increase prices by the amount costs have gone up it is going to be very small. Wages go up by 20% and wages are 20% of costs? prices up 4%
Many fast food restaurants and grocery stores, which commonly employee minimum wage workers, have payroll accounting for 25-40% of operating costs. These same places already make very slim profit margins that average around 3-5%. A 20% increase in wages would eat all profits and would force businesses to cut hours for workers or raise prices(which would also need to make up for decreased demand due to higher prices). Businesses need reasonable profit margins in order to grow and stay afloat so they will get that money be working employees harder or by charging customers more. Even though minimum wage workers may very well receive more income, the vast majority of workers already earn more than minimum wage and will not see their income rise. On the contrary the majority of workers will see themselves being able to buy less stuff because businesses need to raise prices in order to maintain reasonable profits.
@@TheWizel What kind of business do you run?
@@reaper10unleashed Agreed, even if labor is a small cost to you as a business you need to allow for your materials, which will now be more expensive to produce, transport and sell.
The main effect of raising the minimum wage is that prices are inflated, which is most detrimental to those only slightly above the minimum wage as their spending power is decreased.
This is debatable.. Typically employers will simply pay for less hours keeping their payroll the same to maintain some way to be price competitive...
"Labor" is people though, it's fundamentally different from gas or cigarettes. Gas doesn't care whether you pay a low or high price for it, it's just gas. However, if you pay too low of a price for "labor" then "labor" can't afford housing or commodities.
When I was a kid, my 7th grade class had an argument about raising the minimum wage. I wish I had this video back then!
That way you could have been dumber
Explain to me how low income workers get 20% of their earnings taken in taxes, when 50% of Americans don't even pay federal taxes!
Sales tax and gasoline tax!
~50% don't pay federal *income* tax. You still have to pay tax for Social Security and Medicare. And state and local taxes.
If I'm not mistaken, tax refunds have something to do with it.
the only reason you think 50% of americans don't pay taxes is because you follow too much liberal news
Payroll taxes, property taxes (cars count here), gas taxes, sales taxes, Medicare,Medicaid, social security...there are so freaking many taxes
Clever conflation of 'having' and 'raising'. Of course minimum wage can be too high that it has a negative effect. Not having one at all is a race to the bottom.
The correct minimum wage increases employment because it give more people more money to buy things, so raises demand for things to be made and sold, thus raises employment
In California we make $13/hr as minimum wage, rest of the country is at $7.50/hr. I’m a bus driver, when I started here it was at 12.50/hr with min wage at $10.50/hr, now I’m at $13.75, min wage 13.50/hr. How exactly does min wage help me when next year our union’s CBA raises our wages to just $14.15/hr when min wage also goes up to $14/hr?!?
CBA for 2022 hasn’t been discussed yet, but 2022 min wage goes up to $15/hr. Company I work for isn’t making enough atm with lockdowns to pay for all their overhead and the 70 drivers it needs to run on restrictive care, min wage isn’t going to help especially since those ashats in LA want it to be raised to $20/hr before 2025 because landlords keep raising their rent.
In California, your rent is based on the average minimum wage (really seems like it.) So a single room is $1400/mo in the Riverside Area, $900/mo for 55+. Restrict these, don’t raise min wage, it doesn’t help the issue’s Systemic roots.
While I do understand this, I also worry having no minimum wage would also be a bad thing.
it'll create competition
@@jabber1990 Please look at the industrial revolution age wages, some wages were only 2 dollars an hour, you cannot survive on the current US minimum wage
@@InternetUser-xo2uw thats funny, because I make minimum wage, I am surviving just fine
@@InternetUser-xo2uw Wrong, in the context of that time it was perfectly possible to survive on $ 2 an hour. Raising the minimum wage makes it impossible to survive even on $ 1,000,000 an hour.
@@InternetUser-xo2uw 2 dollars an hour during the industrial revolution? That's more than enough.
Now, there's another question. If we tax cigarettes to try to keep people from smoking and alcohol to try to keep people from drinking, remind me why there's a tax on income.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
@@martletkay my point is the income tax results in less money in the hands of poor people. Property taxes serve to increase costs to be housed, personal property taxes serve to increase the cost of owning motorized transportation. These taxes ARTIFICIALLY raise those costs to the detriment of low income Americans.
If you're going to tax a commodity harshly to discourage its use, what difference is there in imposing such taxes on necessities like income, housing, and personal transportation?
It is a punishment for being a productive member of society far as I'm concerned
I live in Alberta. When we raised the minimum wage many small businesses closed, except the extremely small who didn’t have workers to pay, and the larger businesses had to fire workers and raise prices to stay afloat (or in some cases, manage their own greed).
Right, let's just ignore all the other reasons small businesses were already closing left and right. Definitely not the constant assault on the economy by the rich and definitely not all the monopolies running rampant. It's like saying people left town when they put up the windmills but ignoring all the toxic waste
I can't afford employees. Not even because I can't afford to pay them. But I can't afford the costs associated with them. The taxes keep me from wanting them. Lol
This is my understanding before I watch the vid:
6 workers getting paid 10$ each if minimum wage rises then the business owner can’t afford that sixth worker and ends up firing them as a result
No minimum: Workers die in the streets because they are not paid a wage they can live on, plus in most countries, minimum wage increases with inflation.
@@InternetUser-xo2uw why in the world do you think anyone would let themselves be paid such a small amount?
@@cowboy2006 Because they can not choose their wage in this case, if you only have 1 shot at getting a job before you run out of food, you would take any job, no matter how bad, most workers do not have union support, so they cannot negotiate their wage for entry level jobs.
@@InternetUser-xo2uw but you should be able to negotiate your wage
@@cowboy2006 That rarely happens, and would be uninforcible
The problem with this problem, heh, is that there is no one answer that will solve things, no "silver bullet" if you will. To really solve the problem we need to make a multitude of steps simultaneously, many of which are cultural instead of economic, realize we missed something in the first attempt and then honestly go back to fix it with out giving up on the idea.
Think this is about the most sensible thing I've read in the comments. Not saying I haven't read tons of sensible comments, lol, just that yours stands out among them, eh
The thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
2:00 But how can you improve your living circumstances if you’re stuck working 60 hours a week minimum wage while living on cheap rent, ramen noodles, and possibly even resorting to government subsidies such as food stamps and medicaid.
I admire the whole “pick yourself up by the bootstraps” mentality that many republicans have but when people are struggling just to find the time to go back to school or find some way to become a more qualified worker, how can they do so if these are their circumstances.
I’m not asking for a big yacht with a twin motor. I’m just asking for a tiny little row boat with a beat up paddle.
I don't usually comment on stuff, especially from a month ago, but if you're still a bit confused, the video criticized minimum wage as an ineffective way of combating poverty, and in deed economically, that makes sense.
However, this doesn't mean that we should stop helping the poor, there are still ways like increasing unemployment benefits, government providing resources for the poor and the homeless. It is important that we don't leave these people behind, but it's just that increasing the minimum wage is not how to do it. Hopes that clear it up :)
The way I see it, and try to explain it to people, is that money is a place holder for time worked. If you make $10/hour a $10 item actually costs 1 hour of work. If minimum wage is increases to $15/hour there will be a brief time of instability with layoffs, reduced hours, and price increases but the economy will eventually stabilize. You now make $15/hour but the price of that $10 item has gone up to $15 to compensate for the increase in minimum wage, so it still costs 1 hour of work. Increasing minimum wage causes a bunch of instability and hardship for ultimately nothing. In fact it actually makes things worse for the people making more than minimum wage because prices go up but they don't get a raise to compensate.
Prices go up whether or not minimum wage increases because that's the way businesses operate. But, minimum wage has not increased to compensate for inflation.
Personally, what I think would happen is that things like fast food will increase, and the prices in chain stores will increase, but other industries where skilled workers making more than minimum wage will stay at around the same price.
Which is what we want. The fast food workers and retail workers want to be able to afford a decent place to live, a nice tv, a game console or two, and basically the base level comforts that people in other industries can afford and might even take for granted that they can afford them. In my opinion, a $2-$5 price increase for my McDonald's meal is an acceptable sacrifice for that.
It wouldn't break the economy for Wal-Mart to pay their employees a little bit more.
@@qty1315 prices increase due to several factors, wages being one of them. Minimum wage does increase with inflation, it does so every few years and most people have no issue with that. The big push right now is for minimum wage to be a "life" wage, or an income that a person can sustain themselves on. Most people don't have issues with that comcept either, however, the life wage intends to make your part time McDonald's/Wal-Mart worker middle class by paying them $30,000+ per year. Doing so will greatly disrupt the economy until things normalize, and $30,000 per year becomes equivalent to $10,000 per year, like many minimum wage people currently earn. Also increasing minimum wage, without increasing the wages of highly trained skilled trades is a net pay cut to skilled labor. Skilled trades often pay $50k. Increasing retail and fast food groom $10k to $30k is like giving skilled trades a $20k pay cut since prices and inflation will increase dramatically to compensate. There will also be layoffs. Every time minimum wage has increased, unemployment rates have increased shortly after as companies terminate workers to cut costs and small businesses close.
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be life long careers. Typically, as people age they gain experience which allows them to either be promoted or find a higher paying job. There are several people who don't understand this statistical fact. They feel that it is unfair for someone 20 years older than them, with 20 years more experience, and a higher level of education and training, to make more money than they do. There are those that are middle aged with familes that are working what are typically considered minimum wage jobs. What most people don't know is that these workers are often making more than minimum wage, but not much. They also typically have never advanced their education or training, nor have they attempted to advance their career other than looking for the same job but from a different employer. They are being paid what uneducated, unskilled, and inexperienced labor gets paid, because thats the type of worker that they are and the type of job they have. If minimum wage paid close to what highly trained and skilled workers make, then why would people spend the time, effort, and money to work a more difficult job that pays nearly the same as the job they had in high school?
@@mechredd You're assuming that the majority of people working in minimum wage jobs are high schoolers. That probably was the case in the 80s/90s, but it isn't now.
@@qty1315 58.5% of minimum wage workers are ages 16 to 24. Majority of those over 24 are people that started a minimum wage job when they were young and never advanced beyond it. The number of older people in low paying jobs is increasing but that's mainly because the number of young people staying in low paying jobs their entire lives is increasing. Minimum wage increases also slightly contribute to this problem. For example, a person working retail will receive small raises for every year of employment, as most jobs do, however, the raises are so small that when minimum wage increases by a few dollars, as it does in most states every few years, that person is now once again making minimum wage. What has changed since the 80's and 90's is how to get promoted. Back in the day, a person could start as a cashier or stock boy, then if they stayed long term, they could move into management and start making a good income. Starting from the bottom and working your way up has become a thing of the past as more and more jobs require a college education, that didn't only a few years ago. Now you can start at the bottom and work to the middle or start in the middle and work toward the top. Raising minimum wage isn't going to fix the issue. Minimum wage will always be minimum wage, and will always be for unskilled and inexperienced workers. Inflation and market dynamics will see to that. My original point of the true currency being time worked will always be valid regardless of whatever number of dollars gets assigned to it. If a person wants their time worked to be worth more, then they need to become worth more as a worker, which requires increased skills, education, and experience.
@@mechredd That study you are referring to is outdated. The reality is that in 2017 52% of minimum wage workers were in that age range, while in 2018 43% were. The amount of people outside of the high school and college age group working in minimum wage jobs is increasing at an alarming rate.
I want to see a in depth analysis comparing automatic checkout and a minimum wage cashier. Automatic checkout is something WalMart and Dollar General can afford to purchase, but you can bet a Mom & Pop store never could.
So glad I got this in my recommended!! I have a TED talk about the cons of $15 minimum wage in class.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
When they last increased the minimum wage, my hours were cut and me and my coworkers suffered. One of my coworkers was taking care of both his wife and disabled girlfriend and couldn't afford to lose any hours.
Wife and girlfriend?
The government should pay people in hard times so they can survive
@@InternetUser-xo2uw Theyre doing that now.
Nobody ever talks about cost of poverty, but why would they? It is not the companies picking up the welfare bill, not when stop Besos act was thrown out
I had never heard this argument before. It is even simpler than what I was working with.
The thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
@@martletkay
People aren't commodities.
However, taxes aren't
put into coffers.
The difference is that the companies still need labour to function, Tax water and people wont stop drinking. Also it allows protection against people who are working a full time job to remain unable to afford basic necessities
Oh my god, an actually sane person who doesn't just think humans are commodities.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
The problem with e.g. unreasonably high cigarette cost is that, in reality, people simply buy less other products and/or services, or buy their cigarettes from abroad, mostly illegally.
You will be paid what you are worth. If you are not worth the minimum wage, you won't be hired.
That's why minimum wage increases cause unemployment
I always saw the minimum wage as "I'd pay you less but the government won't let me"
Same
It literally is though, it's the same reason why they are pro migration so they can over supply the labour market so that wages are forced down
there are plenty of people who deserve less than minimum wage
@@jabber1990 If you are talking about US minimum wage, you are saying "Some people deserve homelessness"
if you want to make more than Minimum wage, either work harder and earn it, or find a job that pays more
...Sorta? Two things it neglects:
1. It uses small businesses as an excuse. While it is true that this kills small businesses (see 2), it's lack makes it impossible for laborers to survive or obtain any good standard for living. IF labor were scarce, that would not be an issue, but it's virtually infinite. And we all know what happens when there's lots of supply and little demand...
2. ...On the other hand, labor is not a luxury good for businesses: It's a necessity. You can drive up the minimum wage as much as you want and the companies in question either sink or swim, they have no choice but to take labor.
This is a great idea in theory. An awesome one in fact. It's little practical technicalities that kill it.
On an unrelated note: If you increase the cost of labor by 10%, the cost of the product does NOT necessarily increase by 10%. There's base material costs to consider in all this as well.
We’re at very low levels of employment. Labor is nothing even close to approaching infinite. In fact, my parents have been trying to fire one of their managers for months now. First cause he’s incompetent and then because he’s stealing. In your world, they wouldn’t have even had to put up with his incompetence, let alone even one day of his theft.
Skilled labor IS scarce, a business that is already struggling can’t afford to pay bad workers even more money. Technically, they can. They can sell the business, sell the land, sell their equipment and fire everyone. But I don’t know how that’s supposed to help these laborers “survive”.
For those who constantly praise the Nordic countries for their education, healthcare, free college, etc and says we should be more like those countries, note that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway have NO minimum wage...
If I recall correctly, though, they have very involved Unions that act as the government in this portion and institute a minimum wage through their power.
Mitch Hammond
Whoa! I did not know that!
They have unions who actually deal with the company on the workers pay so if you don't want minimum wage then you could easily do that instead.
Their minimum wage through collective bargaining is actually around 20 us dollars an hour. This is due to stricter protections for trade unions
They don't need it, they have a generous welfare state.
I work a minimum wage job in a college town. at 30 hours that's $870 monthly and $174 of that goes to taxes. Yet i'm not fucking complaining. At least I am working, developing skills for the market place, and working on a degree.
I’m largely divided on the minimum wage, but to be fair to the opposition, when you say it hurts racial minorities, and then say that low skilled labor is priced out, that kind of implied that minorities are low skilled labor.
It isn't really just implying
Sometimes, truth hurts.
They are low skilled labor.
But they can be converted to high skilled if you give them experience.
God I still love these old videos they’re so useful
For dumbing you down and keeping you working against your own interest. Like most conservative tripe.
See, the thing is, when you increase prices on cigarettes, the cigarettes don't need to get a third job and still can't keep the lights on their houses. You're not PAYING THE CIGARETTES TO DO THEIR JOB. You're taxing them, and that tax just goes into a coffer somewhere. It's literally not the same thing and the maker of this video is being VERY misleading about this knowing full people will not perceive the difference. The difference is that a higher minimum wage for poor people means that money GOES DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, and usually right back into the hands of the wealthy. It is spent and the money circulates. Unlike when you let rich people hoard it, aka "trickle down". Let's try "constantly circulating current of money amongst the normal people" for once. Yes, the cost of cigarettes goes up, but the cigarettes gain no benefit from that increase, because they're commodities. Unlike people. Cigarettes don't need to feed their children. People are not commodities.
Seamus for president 2024
People working 1 or more jobs and not able to even afford their drive to work much less rent but technically being employed is nothing to be proud of. Humans were not made to be employed. We were not spawned as workforce to be used by the rich as they please. We are human. And we make the rules. We are not beholden to what the rich want. We can change the rules. Employment means nothing if it's not improving people's lives, much less giving them the absolute, cold and calculated bare minimum. We have been trained to view employment as something the rich offers like a penny to a beggar child; we should be grateful for ANYTHING they choose to give us. But employment should should be viewed as it really is, and how it started back in ancient history; one person NEEDS the workers to make more whatever they're producing because they can't do enough by themselves or can't do it alone, or they need workers to literally keep their commodity from being destroyed. Like security guards, or if they have too few workers to harvest the crops rotting in the fields. Employers don't rule us like a bunch of pathetic pawns, they NEED US TO DO THEIR WORK. We are agreeing to be paid to do THEIR WORK. Don't forget this.
Yeah, thats kinda the whole point, if your job doesnt pay enough, leave for one that does, if enough people leave, the job pays more, then you go back or stay at your own job
@@LucianoMas-t7b Your argument assumes a perfectly competitive labor market where workers have easy access to better-paying jobs and the mobility to switch jobs frequently. In reality, many workers face significant barriers to changing jobs. Factors like limited job availability in certain regions, lack of access to transportation, and insufficient training or education can make it difficult for workers to leave low-paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage to something more livable would help ensure that even those who can’t easily switch jobs can still earn a living wage.
As for the job's wages increasing if enough people leave, that's a rather idealistic outcome. What makes you think it would turn out that way? It's just as likely that the business will shut down because nobody wants to work for a company that never pays its workers anything more than poverty-level wages. Here's another perspective: If a company's business model requires that they pay their workers poverty-level wages, then that business shouldn’t exist. The free market swings both ways.
@@EnlightenedByKnowledge you can thank government intervention for that one
No minimum wage means employers can get away with paying you 20 cents an hour and there ain't shit you can do about it cause every other job will just follow along with it. Minimum wage shouldn't be jacked up to 15 dollars an hour but there sure as hell shouldn't be no minimum wage.
If most employers only paid 20 cents a hr, that would actually hurt them as no one will be able to afford their products and services. Also, most employers already pay above minimum wage.
Why would someone work for 20 cents an hour?
Trust me without minimal wage all the jobs I've ever worked for would pay next to nothing. I'd bet they could they would pay 50 cents an hour.
Minimal wage is an overall good.
Some people would pay you 0 cents per hour if they could, but they can't because no one would choose to work at a place like that.
Why should we trust you?
Minimum wage vanishment would make low skilled workes competing against each other, while minimum wage law sets a lot of ppl will get no job while those who get a job will have a better wage income.
It's all about less money for more ppl (without minimum wage) or more money for less ppl (with minimum wage).
Thank god if you don't get unemployed...
What about standards of living? You cant live off of 3 dollars an hour.
plastic Spoon It's better than nothing...
I agree, the issue is that these "supplemental income" jobs have become "breadwinner" jobs for allot of people due to economic changes. I mean, 50 years ago no one over 25 worked at grocery stores unless they were total burnouts, skilled labor (butcher for example), or the managers. Now my local grocery store is filled with regular staff that need to live off that job and are all in their 30s
Dylan Houlihan- Kinda depends on where you live. America didn't always have those jobs filled with young people, and while that may of been the case 50 years ago, there were also well paying factory jobs for people who didn't have higher education degrees.Those have largely been lost to mechanization so there aren't many options for people who don't have higher education now a days.
I can live off of $3/hr...
*IF* you can get a full time job at that rate (40 hours/week) that means you make 480$/month. Where I live the best you can get is a crappy studio apartment in a bad neighbourhood for 300$/month, utilities not included. I find it unlikely you can feed yourself and pay all your utilities for 180$. You will also have to walk everywhere. Of course I'm assuming you don't receive welfare or handouts. Also once something unexpected happens good luck coming up with money to pay for it.
I am kind of surprised you didn't view this from an anti-competitive standpoint. The higher labour costs choke out smaller businesses while larger companies are able to absorb the costs better. Hence why amazon lobbies for minimum wage increases as the larger market share gained from failed smaller stories outweighs the increased labour costs.
A couple of thoughts:
- raising the minimum wage will only serve to increase the costs of goods and services. Since the cost of living would probably increase with the increase in minimum wages, the increase in wages would effectively be nulled. So all that is accomplished is keeping people in the same place while making things more expensive (inflation).
- Relatively very few people make minimum wage with no benefits as a full-time career. That vast majority of minimum wage workers are students working part-time jobs. Therefore increasing the minimum wage does not solve any big-picture issues.
V:"Why? We have slaves for that." B:"Quit calling them that!" V:" Fine... Interns..." B:"thank you." Thank you team four star.
Love this video. I've made many videos on this subject and completely agree.
I don’t get the argument that raising taxes on gas, reduces the amount of gas sold. Gasoline is an inelastic good; so people are pretty munched forced to buy it, so they can commute to work. Even if gas prices doubled. You’d still buy the same amount of gas, Bc you still have to commute to make a living. Although after a very large amount of price increase; people would eventually switch to different types of cars. But thats due to the fact that gas isn’t perfectly inelastic, just very inelastic.
Animated Thomas Sowell:D! Yay!
Not quite sure about the arguments here. Mentioning the stated points below to try to understand them better:
1. "Rising minimum way drives up unemployment"- theoretically sounds fair. If the price of a product goes up, down goes its supply. However, I think this characterisation for vital resources of production is inaccurate.
See, if the price of an essential raw material (say, any chemical involved in production process) goes up, companies don't stop buying it or buy less of it. They understand that they NEED this raw material in order to manufacture goods. Abruptly decreasing its purchase would throttle their production capabilities. Less produce means less sales means less income means less profits for its executives & shareholders. All is sad :(
In fact, the examples that this video takes to illustrate the dynamic between price & demand are all 'necessary' goods, whose demand in fact remains quite INELASTIC. An increase in price of cigarettes doesn't mean you'll be able to smoke less, given that smoking is an addiction. Similarly, an increase in price of fuel doesn't ever drive down the usage of fuel. Consider this, if gas prices increase tomorrow, will it mean that you'll stop taking your car to work and instead take the train or bus? No, that doesn't necessary happen. Likewise, an increase in cost of labour or talent doesn't necessarily lead to a decrease in its demand because just like gasoline & cigarettes, labour is an essential resource for production which cannot be easily replaced. So companies will still need to retain their existing workforce and hire more in the future order to atleast maintain their current levels of profitability and also grow these profits in the future.
So what do they do? In order to offset this rise in cost of raw material and subsequent rise in cost of production, companies simply raise their prices in the short term. In the long term they would either look for cheaper alternatives or try to optimise their production process better for reducing their expenses in other areas.
Another point is that, given that a minimum wage increase is going to increase costs for all sellers, it's not like someone else can undercut the others by offering lower prices due to cheaper labour (unless of course they shift more jobs to overseas, in which case they'd need to factor the additional costs of logistics as well, and is applicable only to large businesses and not the majority of small businesses that make up the economy, as this video mentions)
So, for a critical resource such as labour or executive talent which cannot be suddenly replaced (and in fact companies want the best of it under their roofs at any cost), companies would either try to reduce the overall cost by tweaking employment contracts to take away possible perks & benefits (in the end, they will always want to screw their employees to keep more money for themselves) or they would pass on these increased costs to the consumers.
2. Yes, what all this would theoretically lead to, is consumer price increase. Since companies will be forced to pass on this input cost increase to consumers in order to maintain their own profitability, it will be the consumers who shall have to bear the final price. Theoretically, this will lead to an inflationary situation. But we'd have to look at similar junctures in the past when minimum wage was increased to see if it actually caused a subsequent increase in market prices and inflation. If this were the case, no country would ever increase the minimum wages for its population, would it? I'm sure there are other ways to offset the increased input costs for companies which countries would usually adopt.
3. Would a higher minimum wage lead to decreased hiring of less skilled or people with disabilities? I strongly doubt this. Is there any data to back this claim? Of course in the past, some racist industries in Australia or loony KKK communities may have tried this tactic, but is there any evidence to show that this actually works?
Basically, an increase in wage rates increases the cost of human resources of all types of people. It affects companies who are looking to hire all people whether they are from the African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, differently-abled, women, trans or any other community. All talent becomes dearer and more expensive. So why would this specifically affect the hiring of people from marginalised communities only? A skilled African-American worker shall command the same minimum wage as a similarly skilled Caucasian worker, so I don't quite understand why/how this shall affect the former more than the latter..
Yes of course it shall become more expensive (comparatively) to hire African-American workers, but so will be the case for hiring Caucasian workers or any other community, so companies will not really be compelled to hire any one community over another.
If anything hiring the Caucasian worker could be a bigger loss to the company, (if the additional elements of salary are higher for a Caucasian person than the African-American). So it might actually lead to an increase in employment for marginalised communities, in case companies do look to reduce costs.
4. Stop taking 20% income on taxation: The oldest advice ever given in modern day economics! Just reduce taxes! Or eliminate taxes and everything will be okay! Again, not sure how this helps. Reducing taxation negatively affects everything that a govt can do, from building roads and bridges to providing any services to the people. So, not sure that is the right solution to the problem of stagnating real income, a problem which is clearly the result of other economic factors that need to be solved instead.
Happy to hear diverging thoughts rooted in facts! :)
Seamus!!! Freedomtoons FOREVER!
20% in taxes thats cute😂 50-75% in sweden depending how you count and that is for the average worker not the rich. And also the correct minimum wage zero and also a law that makes it illegal to have someone hired for nothing but not a minimum.
Videos like this should get atleast a 100 million views.
Vaibhav C Anil
False.
They should get 360 Million views.
Every American should see this!
Drummer_Jez then we will make Google burn
No, because this is kinda bullshit. In theory it's correct, but only in theory. This knowledge comes straight from the books, without taking into account little details like the situation with cheap sweatshop labor existing in places like China is exactly because they do not have a minimum wage. They have the cheapest labor because they don't pay people shit.
It's a perfect example of what life for the lower class is like without oversight that protects workers.
This video reeks on all sides of middle class student who's not really had a taste of actual life yet, let alone knows what it's like having a job at minimum wage or just above and having to pay rent and all that stuff that comes with life. I'm not 'accusing' the video's maker(s) of being middle class students, I really have no clue, but that's what it feels like.
Darkfoxx Bunyip If these sweatshops are so bad why do people keep working there? Are they being held against their will? The truth is buddy those jobs makes them better of as in without those jobs their lives would be actually worse than it is now. Also median wages in China have been steadily rising. Every society has to go through a cheap labour phase to reach the current standards of the first world.
"why do people keep working there?" Yeah, why don't they just choose not to work, become a beggar in the street! It's completely their own choice, and responsibility that no other options are available between sweatshop and starvation. They should've just been born in a better life, riiight? Dick.
As I've said in previous comments about minimum wages and social healthcare on this channel's video's, they are certainly a good thing. We're not talking about just money and economics, those dollars represent human lives in millions upon millions of cases.
Do you wanna go back to that cheap labor phase? I don't. I prefer the system that has the minimum wage over the system that exploits the people. I profit from it, and if you're living in the sort of luxury that makes you talk like that, you CERTAINLY have profited from it without even realizing. Your life would be massively different if it weren't for those bad bad things like minimum wages. I can tell you it'd suck more, not less, at least believe me on that one.
In my home state of Ohio, the minimum wage is $8.55. So let's say you work 40 hours a week. 8.55 x 40 x 4= $1,368. We pay 12.5% in federal, state, and local taxes, which brings the final net pay per month to $1,197. Which would make the annual income of a minimum wage worker in Ohio working full time $14,364. Therefore, a minimum wage worker is in poverty, and cannot afford to live. Ohio's poverty rate, or employees living off of minimum wage/disability benefits? 14.8%. Now, I understand this is just one state, rather than the entire country, but it does call into question the efficiency of minimum wage to help its' citizens, as the reason why the minimum wage does not help is because the week before minimum wage goes up, all the stores and restaurants raise their prices. The week before our minimum wage here went from $8.10 to $8.55 is when the price of a loaf of bread went from 89 cents to $1.29.
"pushing women out of the job" ... way to turn me from Libertarian to Socialist guys ;-)
What is the downside?
based
@@uberspessmann9604 I guess he means that he hate women
@@2mado188 And?
The federal government may remove the minimum wage but the states won't. I believe alabama is the only state that doesn't have a minimum wage.
Thank goodness you pointed out that a national minimum wage is just a socialist tool to advance the destruction of the US economy . Sadly , if the proponents actually cared for lower wage earners the would read some of the newest research that states minimum wage is something that should be set locally based on economy , industry , median wage , etc. I don't remember which university did the study ( I think it was in Georgia but don't quote me on that ) . Its rather interesting .
What is the legal minimum wage in the Scandinavian countries, so popular with many US leftists? Denmark, Norway and Sweden has no legal minimum wage (except some areas, prone to fraudulent practices).
Every time minimum wage goes up, I've noticed that it doesn't help people who make just above that, and everything becomes more expensive.
I don't get it. How does a fixed minimum wage prevent the hiring of this person or that person?
It doesn't "prevent" it in the sense that it makes it illegal directly, it destroys the incentive to people with lower skills and raises the barrier to entry for social outsiders.
Imagine that you have a job that needs to be done... Say you want someone to mow your lawn next weekend. There are a bunch of neighborhood kids around who would be willing to do it for $20, but you also know that they're not likely to be very thorough because they don't have much experience and they're kids. On the other hand, you could hire a professional crew to come out and do it, but they'll cost you $50.
Right now, the kids' inexperience is balanced against the cost of hiring the pros.
Now say someone in your local government says "Hey, that's not fair! Everybody who mows lawns should get paid the same!" and mandates that the minimum price for hiring someone to mow your lawn is $40.
Suddenly, with the difference in the cost between the kids and the professional crew being very small, and the fact that you might even be able to negotiate a pro crew down $5-10, there's simply no incentive for you to hire the neighborhood kids to do it when you could get way more qualified people for the same price.
This is the major problem with minimum wage.
If you double the current federal minimum wage and bring it up to $15/hr, all the people who thought taking a risk on hiring young, inexperienced kids -- and, frankly, especially those from poorer areas, those who don't speak English so well, and others who would fit into minority categories that fall outside the mainstream culture -- was worth it at $7.25 are now going to be rethinking that position.
Why hire a 16 year old high school drop out when you could now hire a college student with 4-5 years of working experience? Why hire the college student when you can hire the young professional who has 6-10 years of general working experience?
Raising this barrier means that people with lower skills and lower social status are going to suddenly find that their prospects drop like a hot stone.
@@FEEonline
"Raising this barrier means that people with lower skills and lower social status are going to suddenly find that their prospects drop like a hot stone."
I'm afraid I'm still not following. I'm seeing plenty of these lower skills/status people being hired, and people with better education not advancing with better jobs OR better pay. Or is my lack of understanding coming from living in a state where the min. wage is ALREADY at $15/hr?
Young ripped does a good Thomas Sowell!
I never would have thought that the minimum wage had such a dark origin.
It actual origin is Hammurabi's code with lines like this: 271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and eighty ka of corn per day.
They're telling white lies and half-truths. This video is extremely misleading. Do actual research, because this ain't it. It's propaganda by a conservative leaning channel that is clearly trying to do as they always do and pretend to be the common sense innocent voice, but there absolutely agenda here
We dont need to increase minimum wages we need to lower the cost of living like “food”
How do you do that? Make producing food less expensive by relaxing regulations, and lowering the cost of labor.
Young Alexander You'll never convince some people (who love to complain about cost of living) that taxes and regulations are bad for the little guy too.
It's true people just do not understand the most basic economic principles. I would say the average critic of the economic system has 0 economic knowledge whatsoever.
Young Alexander yep
If the local governments would ease restrictions on building new housing, the increase in supply would compensate and lower the price. If property and estate taxes were lowered, low and middle income families could more easily afford to pass their property on to their offspring who could continue to benefit from the hard work of their parents.
A quick point, minimum wage increases also raise the price of goods, since it takes labour to produce any goods. This in turn increases the cost of living, defeating the purpose of raising the minimum in the first place.
Why does a loaf of bread cost $3 when it was a dime in the 1950s? The cost of sunshine and rain didn't go up but the wages of the Teamsters that truck the wheat to the mill, the flour to the bakery, and the bread to the store damn sure did.
Which is why we need to abolish minimum wage,
I'm not an ideological libertarian but FEE raises some great points that both the left & right have ignored.
Methinks to help the poor, reduce bring in money government take.
Ok, so first of all, the assumption that raising the minimum wage leads to unemployment is demonstrably false, Milton Friedman was clearly wrong on this and the examples I have seen where this appears to be the case are really weak correlations at best. Data in the UK for instance shows absolutely no relationship between unemployment and minimum wage increases (which have more than doubled since its introduction!). Well why is this the case? In a free market economy people exchange money for goods and services of others, but the extent to which they can do this is determined by how much money they have to spend of course. Now if the lowest paid segment of society has more money to spend, they then can buy more goods and services causing economic growth. Arguably one of the causes of the great depression was not that there was a shortage of everything but rather people lacked the money (purchasing power) to acquire stuff (Waddill Catchings and William Trufant Foster "The Road to Plenty.") In fact even analysis that criticizes minimum wage increase like "The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco" argue that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment by 1% (note others say there is no correlation at all), one could argue the subsequent increase in living standards overall outweighs that 1% increase in unemployment if that is actually to be believed! This video is painfully simplistic to be blunt and not really based in reality.
U r wrong
The problem is that if a company can get away with paying a dollar a day, they will. Then you wont be able to get a job that you can live on without a degree or years of experience. Not to mention that would lower the price of ALL labor.
*Looks at New Zealand and it's 16.50 an hour minimum wage*
*Looks at it's unemployment rate*
Hmmmmmmmmmm this doesn't fit
Not Marcus Bad yea but there's no point everything else will just get more expansive for example in Chicago everything is very expensive to me because in Illinois their minimum wage is almost double where I am ( Wisconsin) so raising it is just a waist of time and pointless
Another problem with high minimum wage, it makes the jobs of those who do keep the job way harder. Take grocery stores for example. They're forced to cut staffing due to rising labor costs, but the amount of work needed to run the store is unchanged. Now, the people left behind have to do more work. Wages went up 20%, now you have to give 120%.
Do you actually think they're laying people off because wages went up and not corporate greed? Then why is it happening in so many places were the minimum wage hasn't gone up? Why are so many companies trying to get doctorate holders with 50 years of experience for minimum wage? Because corporations are greedy and poorly run because they only think of the shareholders and their own bonuses. They're PURPOSEFULLY keeping their stores understaffed because they make more money and they know desperate people will still work that 150%. Why do you think they lose their minds when people have stopped biting at their badly baited hooks? Their exploitation isn't working as well anymore
"..... They're unpaid interns" .. I died on the spot LoL
What I miss here is that the video doesn't give any evidence that the minorities are unemployed BECAUSE of the minimum wage. Just because some guy lots of years ago wrote something in that sense doesn't mean it's true (than again, I understand that it's difficult to give detailed explanation in three minute video).
Also, I don't get why unemployment of 16 year old people is a problem. Where I live, 16 years old people generally don't have to work to help sustain their family or anything like that, so where's the problem? That young people won't have money to get Iphones? Then again, maybe it's different in America.
And concerning that "raising the price of labour..." part, there is a difference - the way I see it, while people can do without cigarettes or even gas, they can't do without labour. So, when the price of labour gets higher, they can either 1) hire less people and therefore provide less products or services. Thus, a hole is left in the market that will probably get filled by another smaller employers who will hire the people fired from the aforementioned businesses. So basically, the bussinesses will get smaller and more numerous. 2) collapse since they won't be able to be profitable - thus making room in the market for other businesses that will adapt better and fill the hole, repeating the scenario 1). Or 3), they will just pay their employees more - I seriously doubt that the few more dollars they'll have to pay will make all bussinesses suddenly unprofitable - to further the comparison mentioned in the video, the fact that cigarettes or gas is more expensive doesn't mean people will stop smoking or driving. Just the fact that your bussiness, while still profitable, makes you a few less bucks than before, doesn't mean you'll go "shit, I now make (random eg.) 40 dollars of profit instead of 55, guess I'll shut my whole bussiness down".
The only problem I can think of is that when the price of labour grow, the businesses (which are, as most people are, naturally greedy) will set a higher cost for their products and services to compensate for the loss made by higher labour costs. But you can counter that by raising the minimal wage continuously - in Czech Republic, we have minimum wage growing continually for almost 30 years (www.kurzy.cz/kalkulacka/minimalni-mzda/), on of the lowest unemployment range (www.dw.com/en/eurozone-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-rate-since-2008/a-49427704) and as far as I know, prices aren't generally much higher. And I don't think the argument you made in the other comment about Australia and their 'not-really-minimum wage' ("Australia's minimum wage laws actually fairly explicitly account for the problem identified in this video") holds here, because if that's the case, then solution to the problem is still higher minimum wage, just with reasonable exceptions, and not no higher minimum wage at all. So uhm...think of this what you will.
This is dope. I hope more people hire skilled labor like freedomtoons.
Very well done. I'm saving this one for my students.
Don't. It's politically biased Thought you conservatives hated politically biased education....
@@martletkay
Maybe. But us Libertarians think turn about is fair play.
The objective is to move the capital from the top .5% back into circulation. More specifically to move capital into the hands of individuals that will use it productivly. This gives capital value and is the lubricant for the economy.
Minimum wage and higher taxes on the top .5% are the current popular ideas. They aren't perfect.
Just because an idea is popular does not mean that it is correct.
Minimum wage laws actually help to consolidate competition even more to the top .5% as you say, because their institutions are the only ones that have the capital to be efficient enough to pay those higher wages while keeping costs low.
If you want to move capital down to the lower classes give them the opportunity to climb the economic ladder, and become more productive, so that they can bargain for a higher wage.
ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE
minimum wage protects people from being scammed by low-paying jobs.
Not everyone can participate in outsourcing to other jobs. Research is expensive.
Also, you have to consider the fact that there are polices inside many companies that financially incentivize people to stay.
When people find a new job that pays higher,
they have to waste large amounts of time calculating weather it pays better to keep their current benefits or get the new job. If there is minimum wage, they would waste less time because their pay is
guaranteed to offset some of the benefits they lose therefore less time is wasted contemplating the change in jobs.
When no minimum wage is instated,
large companies would justify their actions of paying little by saying that
"paying more" is "minimum wage" concluding that "less pay is good"
>>"but small business would have the resources to beat them"
There are other alternatives to cutting pay below a minimum wage to get the resources.
Also, wouldn't other business use the opportunity of no minimum wage to exploit this.
People cannot detect the exploitation because minimum wage give people self-worth that would have prevented the exploitation.
>>"'but it makes more competition to force big business to treat people better"
This argument dose not consider the fact that the small business could be secretly supporting the big business.
Considering the above, would you want to work for a small business that promises "to beat the big business"
Neither would many other people, especially, considering the fact that small business could be lying.
>>"but small business could offer better pay"
In a world with minimum wage, that still happens.
>>"but a small business paying less than minimum wage could end up beating the big business in pay, later"
It has been proven to not work. There is no guarantee in success, since the small business can just declare bankruptcy to give excuses to not pay more. A struggling small business is incentivized to not succeed because bankruptcy is cheaper than both doubling down and cutting pay.
There are lots of failed startups using unpaid internship and low frequency pay that also disprove the argument.
Also small business is much less efficient than big business in operations, and customers have to pay more in travel to support small business.
I would not want a world with 100s of "small Walmart's" in every small town.
Ok the main problem I have with, what I’m supposing your saying in abolishing the minimum wage, is wage leverage. Theoretically people could be working for 25 cents… Since there is the wreaking of labor unions and Threat of Automation.
I can see having some sort of minimum wage to stop people from paying ten cents and hour or something like that, but doing something like 15-25 dollars is nuts.
That Tacobell kid working half time who doesn't even know a burrito from a taquito does not deserve 15 an hour.
If we got rid of the minimum wage, welfare would still be a thing, so that would become the new de facto minimum wage.
👏Being👏employed👏 doesn't 👏help👏if👏 you👏 can't 👏make👏a👏living.👏 unemployment 👏 rates 👏are 👏not 👏an👏 indicator 👏of 👏wealth