Its impossible to get rid of a minimum wage entirely. If you pay less than cost of living then people can't live day to day, die, and have to be replaced by machines anyways. Having an appropriate minimum wage prevents this from happening. We also have social benefits if you can't find a job and you've searched because wed rather people not starve and say their employed.
No, if you don't pay enough money nobody works for you and you go out of business. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. They compete for workers against each other by offering pay and benefits. This is tempered by the demand for the products they are selling. McDonald's doesn't pay $15 an hour because unskilled labor is common so they find it easy to get employees and people are not willing to pay $10 for a Big Mac.
@@jamesschardt True but nowadays they use the argument they'll just import somebody from a 3rd world country if they can't find anyone in their own country to work for that wage. 🙄😑
Great discussion on minimum wage. I'd also be interested in hearing a talk about "The Big Kahuna"...steering conversations ie steering markets. I dunno, that might be pretty cool
"Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers." Feb 26, 2013 - Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
And this is why minimum wage laws are bad. And speaking of supply and demand, I do believe that there's a demand for more Hayek vs. Keynes. Is there going to be more supply of those economist rap videos?
Can you cover in your next episode healthcare on Europe level? Its basically because I have a question that I certainly can't answer: If a person is ill, but deeply ill and doesn't go to the medic, his condition will get worse and the thing is that the worser he gets the most expensive the treatment will become so isn't it better and cheaper to provide an early healtcare to save much worser costs later? Also, what about contagious diseases? If a certain person has a contagious disease and doesn't go to the medic he can infect people around itself without even knowing it and then when this simple problem could be solved with one early visit to the medic covered by a healthcare service can become an epidemy of much greater cost that will be even worse in depressed zones because they lack hygiene, people live much more close together and they lack the mediums to pay proper treatment. I think there are a lot of movies about pandemics or terminal diseases out there that can serve as a hook for this question.
Seems like you missed the primary economic story arc of the entire movie. They hired what they thought was an idiot so they could manipulate the market and buy up the stock for dirt cheap.
1) Raising the minimum wage forces companies to automate, eliminating jobs. That sounds like a good thing to me. Those eliminated workers can then go do something more useful or even marginally useful. Social media consultants are basically hired to gossip. That's a far preferable job to doing something like working at McDonalds. Force McDonalds to automate and make new jobs like media consultants, dog groomers, or graphic artists. As our society becomes wealthier, we can afford less survival critical goods and services. 2) Most (all?) conservative economists ignore the Shapley Value in their discussions on wages. The Shapley is the mathematical underpinning of the labor market. It gives rise to the Iron Law of Wages, i.e. Labor seeks a subsistence wage. I.e. workers starve. In anything like a just society, this issue must be addressed. A minimum wage is a poor way to address the Shapley Value, but at least it addresses it. A better way is collective bargaining. But owners and management do everything in their power legally, quasi-legally, and sometimes illegally to prevent collective bargaining. It turns out that they don't want to share the profits the workers created with the workers. (Who can blame them? Why share with lazy bastards who only have three jobs? [sarcasm]) Laws are passed, union leaders fired (or murdered), whatever. (Of course, no one can "prove" it was the owners.) It's hard to blame economists for ignoring the Shapley Value. They don't like being murdered either. Andrew Heaton is correct that large businesses much prefer raised minimum wages as it drives out the competition. Of course not paying workers at all would be better still, but even the most hardened billionaire knows the 99% gets petulant when hungry.
@@davidbolha It's nice to hear from the pro-vampire lobby! Oh, you meant business owners. Assuming a well run business (which most aren't) there will be profit above the subsistence level. The Shapley Value is the math about the way this profit is divided among the people needed to generate the profit. Basically, it says the fewer people there are competing in a group, the larger their share of the profit. The equation involves factorials, so all the profits go to the smallest group. What do I mean by smallest group? Suppose I'm making widgets. I need some money to buy stuff like a factory or raw materials. That's the capital in capitalism. I also need someone to run things. That's the boss, i.e. management. Then I need workers. This includes machine workers, but also salesmen, shipping guys, secretaries, etc. Now there's usually 3-4 companies in an industry. That's 3-4 bosses. (More than that and profits disappear.) Meanwhile there's 10,000 machine workers, and several million other workers in the labor pool. These are the numbers we plug into the equation. The share of the profits going to machine workers is something like 4!/10,000!. (The actual equation is way more complicated and I have no idea how to reproduce it here.) This number is so close to zero that it is way under a penny. But the boss still needs to pay enough that the worker can survive, or all the workers starve and soon there's only one worker and 2-4 bosses. (But only enough for most of the workers to survive. Woe to any who get a serious illness.) The share of profits to the more numerous workers is even smaller. We live in a democracy, so starving workers object and pass labor laws. Raising the minimum wage is the simplest and easiest to understand, thus the most popular. It works by artificially forcing bosses to ignore market forces and pay more money. Eventually this causes inflation and raises the cost of living until the workers are starving again (except now some of the jobs have fled to other jurisdictions). But this takes time and meanwhile workers get more money. The socialist solution is to have one boss for the entire country and everyone else be workers. This clearly distorts the entire economy and quickly leads those sick workers into starvation. This is one reason socialist countries (Marxist or National Socialist) end up with starvation and mass murder. A better solution is collective bargaining. Under collective bargaining, there are usually have 3-4 unions. (For example, I know of 3 teachers unions, though there may be more.) With the same number of unions as bosses, the profits go 50-50. Of course this can be abused in a couple of ways. Remember the auto industry? There were too many car companies and only one auto workers union. The companies got no profits and had to sell their future with unfunded pensions. Another example is public sector unions where the union can elect the negotiators on both sides of the table. Suddenly there are large, unfunded pensions in the public sector as well. Today's negotiators frequently choose to give away future promises when they don't have actual money. That's usually a sign labor has too much power. But abuses can be handled. Finding your unfunded pension dry is crushing when you are old, but it's better than starving when you are young. Even those who hate "greedy capitalist pigs", or their "uncaring supervisors" have a vested interest in well run companies. More profits for the company means more profits for the workers, if there's collective bargaining. But that's a big if. Unions usually do better for their workers by spending money on negotiations rather than expanding their membership. (More members means less money per worker.) Businesses do better by limiting membership in unions allowing a stronger negotiating position. Thus unions' legal protections weaken and membership lags as companies lobby hard for less union power and unions lobby for more money now, not caring about the future so much. Left wing intersectionality hasn't helped. Labor is traditionally a Democrat stronghold, but also traditionally White and male. Intersectionalists hate White men and do what they can to destroy unions. The exception is public service unions which are traditionally more minority and female. The Democratic party has abandoned it's labor base. So it's not surprising that private unions suffer while public service unions are crushing it.
"most entry level jobs aren't permanent." while that's true in theory, the reality is that people working at McDonalds and such aren't just huh school kids any longer. Many middle class jobs are going away or the skill levels that are demanded are greater than the people who would historically get those positions or they are being replaced by technology so the adults that would be in the middle class work force are now required to have those low wage, entry level jobs. If they don't make a living wage, then they can't provide for their families and there is often no growth at all in those low wage, entry level jobs so we are hurting the very people we are trying to help by keeping wages low and giving all the profits to the top of the food chain, right?
I realize this is way too late, but maybe it can help: Andrew is referring to the most common meaning of "vampire": a mythical creature that feeds off human blood and lives for many centuries. In many stories, they are portrayed as incredibly wealthy, as they have had centuries to accumulate their wealth. So, the first reference to vampires is effectively a joke that no human can afford housing, so only impossibly wealthy mythical creatures will be able to afford housing. I believe Andrew is just being silly in his second reference to vampires. I'm not familiar with any stories where slums are related to vampires. Nonsensical callbacks seem to be part of Andrew's sense of humor.
His 'letting the market decide' option has resulted in mass gentrification across the US and the UK. The market is driven by profit, and not a desire to house people in decent accommodation at an affordable rate. The 'market' as he calls it, inflates housing prices by buying up property and sitting on it. It sees land and property as an asset to be manipulated and hoarded. It deliberately keeps people homeless in order to keep rents and property prices hi. 'Supply and demand' reflects merely one aspect of housing prices. It is not profitable for property developers to building high quality accommodation for everyday people and people on low incomes (an increasingly large amount of populations within the global north). This is why public housing is built. Or at least why public housing used to be built. Because of the failure of the market to provide adequate shelter to people. The 'we all want to help poor people' claim is false. We don't 'all want to help poor people'. Capitalism doesn't give a shit about people, poor or otherwise. In a capitalist system the value of a human being is linked to his/her ability to pay. This Econ story is, alas, a rendition in neoclassical propaganda.
None of this talk of low minimum wage helping people get into industries is valid in the modern era. These days, people are expected to work for free in an internship before they get anywhere.
Isn't Working for free in an internship a "Low" Minimum Wage? And the Fact that people are willing to do it so they can get experience for employment says a lot about the value of experience.
Was enjoying this until he spouts the right wing crap about minimum wage raises being a bad idea. From a non-American living in a country with a minimum wage 3 times higher than in the USA, I can see the evidence plainly just as the rest of the world does - America's minimum wage is insanely low, and the negative impacts are blatantly clear. Furthermore, he casually also ignores the mountains of evidence that an increased minimum wage actually HELPS the economy. Because then your workers have more disposable income, which they spend, which grows the economy duh...... Not to mention saying that the mailroom only makes 2$ an hour but pay their staff 10$ an hour is completely disingenuous when the CEO makes the company 100,000$, but is paid 367 million a year. Another thing : bringing out the tired trope that min wage was used as a tool of segregation? Completely irrelevant in 2017, and a serious dick move from a logical perspective. Also - Suggesting that minimum wage would put "mom and pop stores" out of business is complete crap if you consider that if the minimum wage was "mandated", those mom and pop stores would just have to be more efficient at managing their labour costs. I live in Australia and there is a Federal minimum wage, but there's still thousands of "mom and pop stores" - in fact they outnumber the large corporate stores 5 to 1. And finally, suggesting that a mandated minimum wage will raise the bar for entry to the workforce for the unemployed as if it has an impact on job supply/demand is a complete red herring. Job supply is clearly dictated purely by the success and growth of the business. If the company is being successful based on the merits of its products or services, it will naturally demand more labour. Without a minimum wage, the poor and unemployed can be used and leveraged to generate growth at little to no expense for the company - just like slavery. This is the weakest argument in this entire pathetic screed. Again, I live in Australia, and I get paid minimum wage. I earn enough to have a basic decent standard of living without resorting to selling drugs or having 3 jobs, and the Corporation I work for is the largest single employer in the country with revenue of AU$66 billion a year, and a market cap of AU$46 billion dollars. They do perfectly fine with a Federally mandated minimum wage. Crap, tired, bullshit American arguments all over again. It's a shame, I was ready to like this channel, great concept, great execution, but complete blatant misinformation within the first 5 minutes. Bad. Sad. (as your commander in chief might tweet).
Raising the minimum wage has an undeniable effect on supply and demand, and the production cycle. Your argument really doesn't refute that, but says that businesses should just suck it up. The reality is, raise wages, and prices will rise as well. If people have more money to buy things, then prices will go up to fill the void. And eventually, business will be back to normal. But at the start, businesses will have to put out more in producing anything, as the result of higher wages. Before the system can reach equilibrium, then businesses will have to find a way to cut costs to maintain their production cycle. It will hurt the economy, and workers, and businesses. And over time, things will go back to normal, and people will be no better off. The more money there is in a system, the more prices go up. The classic example is printing money, but debt and health insurance also count. When everyone was going to college on student loans, schools raised their tuition prices to take advantage of all the new money available. Health care costs are high because people can afford it, through health insurance. House and car prices are are high because of home and car loans. The prices are not tied to what people can afford, but to the level of debt they can take on. And raising minimum wage works the same. You suddenly start paying people more for the same work, and businesses that can't afford it either lay off many or go out of business. Eventually more money is printed to pay the higher wages, and inflation occurs. On the subject of workforce barrier to entry, of course raising wages hurts workers. Look at it from the business. If you have 30 dollars per hour to hire more workers, if the minimum wage is 15 dollars per hour, you can only hire two, but if it's 7 dollars per hour, you can hire four. And though in the latter case two are making less, the extra two hires are making more than they would if they were unemployed. Furthermore, if wages are higher, you are going to demand a better return on investment for your workers, which means you are going to want experience, college degree, and less risk. If the minimum wage is less, then you might loosen your standards in order to hire more workers to expand more.
I simply listed the few countries in the world that do not have a minimum wage. This video seems quite hostile to the idea of a minimum wage, so I proposed some possible alternatives. But who will be packing their suitcases for Somalia, Malaysia, East Timor, or North Korea?
I know you're saying this in a rhetorical way to disparage the idea of natural wages, but it's actually a sort of reasonable thing to say! Say you're an American. You wish to exchange your physical labor for wages! Great! But wait no one's hiring physical laborers in your town. Minimum wage laws or union pressure has dictated that physical laborers must be paid more than a factory is willing to. Those factories, and jobs, move to places like... Malaysia. A fine place. I have family there and visit every once in a while. It's warm year round you know? Now if there were fewer international/language barriers, it would be ENTIRELY REASONABLE for you to move to Malaysia to earn a living. Back in reality, you can't easily move overseas. What does happen is that people who are willing to sell their labor for less (in Malaysia) are matched with employers who want them. These jobs allow people in Malaysia to improve their lives, send their children to school, invest in local businesses, pay taxes to improve their country, etc. Like the video said, some of the people who crusade against low-wage labor are, intentionally or not, throwing foreign laborers under the bus. This is best expressed in occasionally xenophobic comments like "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS" or "BUY AMERICAN".
The awesome part about commenting on RUclips is being assured there is virtually zero civility left in discourse. I expect nothing less.. and especially on anything libertarian-related, the bastion of Internet tough guys who cannot point to a location anywhere in the world where a stateless society has benefited its inhabitants. Which is why mentioning countries without functioning governments is always a source of chagrin.
It's a good episode...but the discrepancy with minimum wage is just not true. Most economists agree with increasing the minimum wage and studies show it doesn't have an inflationary or an unemployment effect
just to be clearer. "Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs."
@@bobbinsthethird I mean, there are definitely arguments being made about the lack of (human) farmers/problems with livability for people in agriculture.
WRONG ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE PALTRY TO AFFORD HOUSINGANYTHINGYOU OBVIOUSLY DONT MAKE THAT ALTHOUGH YOU ARE A LITTLE THIN AND ENTRY LEVEL FOR 20 YEARS IS A REALITY FOR SOME FOLKSWISE UP
Dang, your production is spot on in that opening scene! Nice work
Really helped me with my Econ homework. It helps me understand it and explain it better
So glad you're back with more of these videos. I love them!
It totally is my favorite part of the show too!! (Because they told me so, I have liked it less as they have mentioned that it is not....)
Eric Pipe agreed.
I love these shows, but really wish they came out on a quicker schedule.
linkmaxwell We wish that we could make them more quickly, but the show has it's own invisible (to the viewer) economics!
Marshall Lee Well, lets lobby the Gov to make it mandatory for everyone to watch Econ Pop, that should improve things right?
Tyler Calder No, because we'd still have that crappy Subjective Value at the end of every episode.
Marshall Lee Get back to work making awesome content! We free riders demand satisfaction - IMMEDIATELY!
Excellent video. Well explained. I wish more people understood this simple concept!
What about internships as a loophole to the minimum wage?
Its impossible to get rid of a minimum wage entirely. If you pay less than cost of living then people can't live day to day, die, and have to be replaced by machines anyways. Having an appropriate minimum wage prevents this from happening. We also have social benefits if you can't find a job and you've searched because wed rather people not starve and say their employed.
No, if you don't pay enough money nobody works for you and you go out of business. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. They compete for workers against each other by offering pay and benefits. This is tempered by the demand for the products they are selling. McDonald's doesn't pay $15 an hour because unskilled labor is common so they find it easy to get employees and people are not willing to pay $10 for a Big Mac.
Ugh Jesus. The only time people are replaced with machines is when it's more cost efficient to do so. Like say putting a hard floor on wages.
@@jamesschardt True but nowadays they use the argument they'll just import somebody from a 3rd world country if they can't find anyone in their own country to work for that wage. 🙄😑
Great discussion on minimum wage.
I'd also be interested in hearing a talk about "The Big Kahuna"...steering conversations ie steering markets. I dunno, that might be pretty cool
These are great. sharing as "wonder why you've graduated 5 years ago and are still unemployed"?
Do you think we're idiots? Wow, what an insightful commentary. Jesus.
host is hilarious. good stuff!
love the show wish the podcast kept better pace with the episodes
"Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers."
Feb 26, 2013 - Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
thinkprogress.org/half-a-million-people-with-college-degrees-are-working-for-minimum-wage-4a2d86ea7775/
www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/
www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/02/america-record-job-growth-economics-wage-stagnation
www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-26/nearly-102-million-americans-do-not-have-job-right-now-worse-any-point-during-last?fbclid=IwAR3jW1pngq86bcUztfultC6dPlTPirbz0yoA_g2thiIZRzzVYq4J1BFld0Y
Mighty good, Heaton.
If anyone wants to understand what the benefits of the market system are, simply read Frederic BASTIAT.
Parable of the broken window is one of my favorite economic arguments ever.
If you want to know why it's failing today, read volume 3 of Marx's Capital.
@@scottandrewhutchins Is it failing?
You guys should do Disney's Cars. I can already see Bastiat's negative railroad.
If you can't afford to pay a living wage, you can't afford to own a business.
That sounds like an economy destroyer, right there.
Mhm. 😌
Brilliant analogies.
And this is why minimum wage laws are bad. And speaking of supply and demand, I do believe that there's a demand for more Hayek vs. Keynes. Is there going to be more supply of those economist rap videos?
Do all these videos regurgitate the tenets of late capitalism? Or is it just this one.
Can we have more epic rap battles between economists? like smith vs marx?
donde lo puedo ver subtitulado o en españool?
Can you cover in your next episode healthcare on Europe level?
Its basically because I have a question that I certainly can't answer: If a person is ill, but deeply ill and doesn't go to the medic, his condition will get worse and the thing is that the worser he gets the most expensive the treatment will become so isn't it better and cheaper to provide an early healtcare to save much worser costs later? Also, what about contagious diseases? If a certain person has a contagious disease and doesn't go to the medic he can infect people around itself without even knowing it and then when this simple problem could be solved with one early visit to the medic covered by a healthcare service can become an epidemy of much greater cost that will be even worse in depressed zones because they lack hygiene, people live much more close together and they lack the mediums to pay proper treatment.
I think there are a lot of movies about pandemics or terminal diseases out there that can serve as a hook for this question.
Seems like you missed the primary economic story arc of the entire movie. They hired what they thought was an idiot so they could manipulate the market and buy up the stock for dirt cheap.
Being 6’5” is undoubtedly an advantage in corporate America.
Mrs. Maz I watched the video
I said this before: DO HUNGER GAMES!!!!!
1) Raising the minimum wage forces companies to automate, eliminating jobs. That sounds like a good thing to me. Those eliminated workers can then go do something more useful or even marginally useful. Social media consultants are basically hired to gossip. That's a far preferable job to doing something like working at McDonalds. Force McDonalds to automate and make new jobs like media consultants, dog groomers, or graphic artists. As our society becomes wealthier, we can afford less survival critical goods and services.
2) Most (all?) conservative economists ignore the Shapley Value in their discussions on wages. The Shapley is the mathematical underpinning of the labor market. It gives rise to the Iron Law of Wages, i.e. Labor seeks a subsistence wage. I.e. workers starve. In anything like a just society, this issue must be addressed. A minimum wage is a poor way to address the Shapley Value, but at least it addresses it.
A better way is collective bargaining. But owners and management do everything in their power legally, quasi-legally, and sometimes illegally to prevent collective bargaining. It turns out that they don't want to share the profits the workers created with the workers. (Who can blame them? Why share with lazy bastards who only have three jobs? [sarcasm]) Laws are passed, union leaders fired (or murdered), whatever. (Of course, no one can "prove" it was the owners.) It's hard to blame economists for ignoring the Shapley Value. They don't like being murdered either.
Andrew Heaton is correct that large businesses much prefer raised minimum wages as it drives out the competition. Of course not paying workers at all would be better still, but even the most hardened billionaire knows the 99% gets petulant when hungry.
1) Until you end up on the other side. 😎
@@davidbolha It's nice to hear from the pro-vampire lobby!
Oh, you meant business owners. Assuming a well run business (which most aren't) there will be profit above the subsistence level. The Shapley Value is the math about the way this profit is divided among the people needed to generate the profit. Basically, it says the fewer people there are competing in a group, the larger their share of the profit. The equation involves factorials, so all the profits go to the smallest group.
What do I mean by smallest group? Suppose I'm making widgets. I need some money to buy stuff like a factory or raw materials. That's the capital in capitalism. I also need someone to run things. That's the boss, i.e. management. Then I need workers. This includes machine workers, but also salesmen, shipping guys, secretaries, etc.
Now there's usually 3-4 companies in an industry. That's 3-4 bosses. (More than that and profits disappear.) Meanwhile there's 10,000 machine workers, and several million other workers in the labor pool. These are the numbers we plug into the equation.
The share of the profits going to machine workers is something like 4!/10,000!. (The actual equation is way more complicated and I have no idea how to reproduce it here.) This number is so close to zero that it is way under a penny. But the boss still needs to pay enough that the worker can survive, or all the workers starve and soon there's only one worker and 2-4 bosses. (But only enough for most of the workers to survive. Woe to any who get a serious illness.) The share of profits to the more numerous workers is even smaller.
We live in a democracy, so starving workers object and pass labor laws. Raising the minimum wage is the simplest and easiest to understand, thus the most popular. It works by artificially forcing bosses to ignore market forces and pay more money. Eventually this causes inflation and raises the cost of living until the workers are starving again (except now some of the jobs have fled to other jurisdictions). But this takes time and meanwhile workers get more money.
The socialist solution is to have one boss for the entire country and everyone else be workers. This clearly distorts the entire economy and quickly leads those sick workers into starvation. This is one reason socialist countries (Marxist or National Socialist) end up with starvation and mass murder.
A better solution is collective bargaining. Under collective bargaining, there are usually have 3-4 unions. (For example, I know of 3 teachers unions, though there may be more.) With the same number of unions as bosses, the profits go 50-50.
Of course this can be abused in a couple of ways. Remember the auto industry? There were too many car companies and only one auto workers union. The companies got no profits and had to sell their future with unfunded pensions. Another example is public sector unions where the union can elect the negotiators on both sides of the table. Suddenly there are large, unfunded pensions in the public sector as well. Today's negotiators frequently choose to give away future promises when they don't have actual money. That's usually a sign labor has too much power.
But abuses can be handled. Finding your unfunded pension dry is crushing when you are old, but it's better than starving when you are young.
Even those who hate "greedy capitalist pigs", or their "uncaring supervisors" have a vested interest in well run companies. More profits for the company means more profits for the workers, if there's collective bargaining. But that's a big if. Unions usually do better for their workers by spending money on negotiations rather than expanding their membership. (More members means less money per worker.) Businesses do better by limiting membership in unions allowing a stronger negotiating position. Thus unions' legal protections weaken and membership lags as companies lobby hard for less union power and unions lobby for more money now, not caring about the future so much.
Left wing intersectionality hasn't helped. Labor is traditionally a Democrat stronghold, but also traditionally White and male. Intersectionalists hate White men and do what they can to destroy unions. The exception is public service unions which are traditionally more minority and female. The Democratic party has abandoned it's labor base. So it's not surprising that private unions suffer while public service unions are crushing it.
"most entry level jobs aren't permanent." while that's true in theory, the reality is that people working at McDonalds and such aren't just huh school kids any longer. Many middle class jobs are going away or the skill levels that are demanded are greater than the people who would historically get those positions or they are being replaced by technology so the adults that would be in the middle class work force are now required to have those low wage, entry level jobs. If they don't make a living wage, then they can't provide for their families and there is often no growth at all in those low wage, entry level jobs so we are hurting the very people we are trying to help by keeping wages low and giving all the profits to the top of the food chain, right?
Absolutely right.
I am translating part of this, but what does he mean by "vampires" in both sentences? Can anyone help me?
I realize this is way too late, but maybe it can help:
Andrew is referring to the most common meaning of "vampire": a mythical creature that feeds off human blood and lives for many centuries. In many stories, they are portrayed as incredibly wealthy, as they have had centuries to accumulate their wealth. So, the first reference to vampires is effectively a joke that no human can afford housing, so only impossibly wealthy mythical creatures will be able to afford housing.
I believe Andrew is just being silly in his second reference to vampires. I'm not familiar with any stories where slums are related to vampires. Nonsensical callbacks seem to be part of Andrew's sense of humor.
Is this Tamagochi thing you speak of something like a Cabbage Patch Kid?
You seem to like Economics a lot, does that mean when you go on a plane you fly Economy?
His 'letting the market decide' option has resulted in mass gentrification across the US and the UK. The market is driven by profit, and not a desire to house people in decent accommodation at an affordable rate. The 'market' as he calls it, inflates housing prices by buying up property and sitting on it. It sees land and property as an asset to be manipulated and hoarded. It deliberately keeps people homeless in order to keep rents and property prices hi. 'Supply and demand' reflects merely one aspect of housing prices. It is not profitable for property developers to building high quality accommodation for everyday people and people on low incomes (an increasingly large amount of populations within the global north). This is why public housing is built. Or at least why public housing used to be built. Because of the failure of the market to provide adequate shelter to people. The 'we all want to help poor people' claim is false. We don't 'all want to help poor people'. Capitalism doesn't give a shit about people, poor or otherwise. In a capitalist system the value of a human being is linked to his/her ability to pay. This Econ story is, alas, a rendition in neoclassical propaganda.
so, vampires either way?
John Loockkkeee mah boi
Are you guys more Keynesian...or Hayekian?
Hayekian for sure.
None of this talk of low minimum wage helping people get into industries is valid in the modern era. These days, people are expected to work for free in an internship before they get anywhere.
Isn't Working for free in an internship a "Low" Minimum Wage? And the Fact that people are willing to do it so they can get experience for employment says a lot about the value of experience.
In some industries.
I would have liked it more if you had an economist than a philosopher :3
Economists are philosophers.
do one about harry potter
America works from House of cards!:)
EconPop needs to do another one about House of Cards
how about the economics of "resident evil"
He really reminds me of someone...who is it though?!
+Danger Ranger Dan I get a Bill Nye vibe from him
Bill Nye, but also Hugh Laurie.....
wait.. I've got it.. A younger Hugh Laurie DRESSED like Bill Nye :D
upscale gas stations :)
Was enjoying this until he spouts the right wing crap about minimum wage raises being a bad idea. From a non-American living in a country with a minimum wage 3 times higher than in the USA, I can see the evidence plainly just as the rest of the world does - America's minimum wage is insanely low, and the negative impacts are blatantly clear. Furthermore, he casually also ignores the mountains of evidence that an increased minimum wage actually HELPS the economy. Because then your workers have more disposable income, which they spend, which grows the economy duh......
Not to mention saying that the mailroom only makes 2$ an hour but pay their staff 10$ an hour is completely disingenuous when the CEO makes the company 100,000$, but is paid 367 million a year.
Another thing : bringing out the tired trope that min wage was used as a tool of segregation? Completely irrelevant in 2017, and a serious dick move from a logical perspective.
Also - Suggesting that minimum wage would put "mom and pop stores" out of business is complete crap if you consider that if the minimum wage was "mandated", those mom and pop stores would just have to be more efficient at managing their labour costs. I live in Australia and there is a Federal minimum wage, but there's still thousands of "mom and pop stores" - in fact they outnumber the large corporate stores 5 to 1.
And finally, suggesting that a mandated minimum wage will raise the bar for entry to the workforce for the unemployed as if it has an impact on job supply/demand is a complete red herring. Job supply is clearly dictated purely by the success and growth of the business. If the company is being successful based on the merits of its products or services, it will naturally demand more labour. Without a minimum wage, the poor and unemployed can be used and leveraged to generate growth at little to no expense for the company - just like slavery. This is the weakest argument in this entire pathetic screed. Again, I live in Australia, and I get paid minimum wage. I earn enough to have a basic decent standard of living without resorting to selling drugs or having 3 jobs, and the Corporation I work for is the largest single employer in the country with revenue of AU$66 billion a year, and a market cap of AU$46 billion dollars. They do perfectly fine with a Federally mandated minimum wage.
Crap, tired, bullshit American arguments all over again.
It's a shame, I was ready to like this channel, great concept, great execution, but complete blatant misinformation within the first 5 minutes.
Bad. Sad. (as your commander in chief might tweet).
Raising the minimum wage has an undeniable effect on supply and demand, and the production cycle. Your argument really doesn't refute that, but says that businesses should just suck it up.
The reality is, raise wages, and prices will rise as well. If people have more money to buy things, then prices will go up to fill the void. And eventually, business will be back to normal.
But at the start, businesses will have to put out more in producing anything, as the result of higher wages. Before the system can reach equilibrium, then businesses will have to find a way to cut costs to maintain their production cycle. It will hurt the economy, and workers, and businesses. And over time, things will go back to normal, and people will be no better off.
The more money there is in a system, the more prices go up. The classic example is printing money, but debt and health insurance also count. When everyone was going to college on student loans, schools raised their tuition prices to take advantage of all the new money available.
Health care costs are high because people can afford it, through health insurance. House and car prices are are high because of home and car loans. The prices are not tied to what people can afford, but to the level of debt they can take on. And raising minimum wage works the same.
You suddenly start paying people more for the same work, and businesses that can't afford it either lay off many or go out of business. Eventually more money is printed to pay the higher wages, and inflation occurs.
On the subject of workforce barrier to entry, of course raising wages hurts workers. Look at it from the business. If you have 30 dollars per hour to hire more workers, if the minimum wage is 15 dollars per hour, you can only hire two, but if it's 7 dollars per hour, you can hire four. And though in the latter case two are making less, the extra two hires are making more than they would if they were unemployed.
Furthermore, if wages are higher, you are going to demand a better return on investment for your workers, which means you are going to want experience, college degree, and less risk. If the minimum wage is less, then you might loosen your standards in order to hire more workers to expand more.
Don't like minimum wage laws? GREAT! Perhaps Somalia, Malaysia, East Timor, or North Korea is the place for you!
I simply listed the few countries in the world that do not have a minimum wage. This video seems quite hostile to the idea of a minimum wage, so I proposed some possible alternatives. But who will be packing their suitcases for Somalia, Malaysia, East Timor, or North Korea?
I know you're saying this in a rhetorical way to disparage the idea of natural wages, but it's actually a sort of reasonable thing to say! Say you're an American. You wish to exchange your physical labor for wages! Great! But wait no one's hiring physical laborers in your town. Minimum wage laws or union pressure has dictated that physical laborers must be paid more than a factory is willing to. Those factories, and jobs, move to places like... Malaysia. A fine place. I have family there and visit every once in a while. It's warm year round you know? Now if there were fewer international/language barriers, it would be ENTIRELY REASONABLE for you to move to Malaysia to earn a living. Back in reality, you can't easily move overseas. What does happen is that people who are willing to sell their labor for less (in Malaysia) are matched with employers who want them. These jobs allow people in Malaysia to improve their lives, send their children to school, invest in local businesses, pay taxes to improve their country, etc. Like the video said, some of the people who crusade against low-wage labor are, intentionally or not, throwing foreign laborers under the bus. This is best expressed in occasionally xenophobic comments like "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS" or "BUY AMERICAN".
Sweden lacks a minimum wage.
Emberwilde Productions
The wages of North Korea are set by the state not by supply and demand. Thank you for playing. You're an idiot.
The awesome part about commenting on RUclips is being assured there is virtually zero civility left in discourse. I expect nothing less.. and especially on anything libertarian-related, the bastion of Internet tough guys who cannot point to a location anywhere in the world where a stateless society has benefited its inhabitants. Which is why mentioning countries without functioning governments is always a source of chagrin.
It's a good episode...but the discrepancy with minimum wage is just not true. Most economists agree with increasing the minimum wage and studies show it doesn't have an inflationary or an unemployment effect
Well I also mentioned some studies, but I'm not exactly going to cite my references here for lack of time
regardingpolishkid you said "studies show" but didn't mention any actual studies.
whydoineedaname k Alright alright fine www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
just to be clearer. "Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs."
Why are you patronizing me for providing evidence lol. Anyways, is this settled now..
economics of man of steel?
GREAT JOB... DOWN WITH DO-GOODDERS.
Please turn off caps lock.
Breaking bad
Why wouldn't we want them automating those jobs?
If raising the minimum wage provides incentives to automate a job, that's a good thing
But then there are less jobs for humans to work in order to get the things they need to survive. That’s kind of the whole issue.
@@zeltzamer4010 Over 70% of humans used to work as farmers. since that has dropped to 2% have we become richer or poorer?
@@bobbinsthethird I mean, there are definitely arguments being made about the lack of (human) farmers/problems with livability for people in agriculture.
WRONG ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE PALTRY TO AFFORD HOUSINGANYTHINGYOU OBVIOUSLY DONT MAKE THAT ALTHOUGH YOU ARE A LITTLE THIN AND ENTRY LEVEL FOR 20 YEARS IS A REALITY FOR SOME FOLKSWISE UP
Turn off caps lock if you want to be taken seriously.
Lol
Y
first