"How much value do you bring in?" only puts a ceiling on pay negotiations. Desperation is what drives the actual number.

There are many, many more people like that which is why minimum wage rises almost always come straight out of profit margins:

http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/NELP-Big-Busines...

There is, of course, the matter of the vast amount of economic propaganda saying the opposite. That's driven by what economists call "incentives".

You seem to think value and price are the same thing and both can be absolutely determined. Also it sounds weird to talk about people's labor as if they were potatoes, while you assert that minimum wage will result in them not having a job as if it's a nature law.

I'd try to reason with you, but it seems we're not in the same world anyway.

Claiming that I'm too unreasonable to debate with won't win you any points.

> Also it sounds weird to talk about people's labor as if they were potatoes

It's not weird since it's something that has a market value. People are not their labor. Someone's labor can be bought and sold, and the availability and price of labor is subject to the same economic laws as potatoes.

Some potatoes are worth $0.60 but not $0.80, and if the price of potatoes were dictated to be $0.80, the $0.60 would go in the trash.

I don't want potatoes or people's labor to go in the trash.

> Claiming that I'm too unreasonable to debate with won't win you any points.

It did with me... Seriously, I think you misconstrued this statement as a personal attack, whereas IMHO its simply used to highlight the flaw in your logic: If we have a complex system where A implies B and B implies C and C implies D and so on which possibly goes back to A in subtle ways, but you're just saying "A implies B, B implies no A, hence this won't work, QED" you are assuming a very simplistic view of reality.

You cannot just stop at one step and draw a definite conclusion from that. As pointed out, the wage increase can be rolled over to a price increase for instance, instead of now having to fire everyone. I'm not saying that no loss of labor could occur, but definitely it's only one of many possibilities and the economy is a highly complex system with all kind of direct and indirect effects that are at play here.

All that said, I would actually argue for basic income than a minimum wage as it will completely eliminate the possibility of the labor loss resulting in a wage loss, but in absence of this, minimum wage seems still better than having an increasing amount of working poor.

I'm trying to understand your potato metaphor. The US government has a long history of setting a price floor beneath agricultural products.

Coming from the other side of $8/hr I can assure you that you'll had so much inhumanity coming at you, you will very likely recognize the true intentions.* Looking back, I cannot thank the moments of compassionate harshness enough and could almost get angry at those denying these moments exist. Instead I say to them: It's easy to wear those rose-colored glasses if you don't have to live with its repercussions.

* granted, this works well on a personal level, maybe not so well if it comes out as a political press release

Staffing is more complicated than "how much they sold during their shift"?

Yes, staffing is more complicated, but min-wage labor cost for a restaurant are a significant portion of the costs and profit margins are very thin [0]. Many won't be able to absorb a ~50% increase in labor cost.

[0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Economics-of-running-a...

Its easy to play 'dot-to-dot' with these things - higher cost means lower sales means people fired. OR more money in the working class pocket means more coffee purchases means more hiring. You can connect-the-dots lots of ways.

The truth is, some of everything happens, and then it settles down into something workable. Yes we'll pay more for our coffee, but we'll also have more money in our pockets. And so on.

Eventually, of course, many things will be automated away by higher wages. At that point, basic income is a reasonable thing to consider.

It will increase the cost of labor, and result in fewer, more expensive goods and services.

We can both claim things all day.

But as far as reducing the amount of goods and services available, that isn't really backed up by anything. It's crazy that we're still relearning the lesson that we learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which is that when you raise the wage floor, consumer spending rises, which drives economic growth.

And yet, if they moved to a different country, their labor would be worth much more!

Funny how that works...

To have been in a country where there are "high" minimum wages, the low value added jobs are the first going away because they're too expensive for what they are.

Cleaning service is one of them.

The opportunity cost of a service is the limit for which one would be expected to pay for it. If forced to pay $1,000,000 to have someone clean your bathroom, you'd end up cleaning it yourself.

High-margin software companies wouldn't care about the cost of their janitors, like you suggest.

The CEO might not, but an enterprising facilities manager would certainly try to cut expenses by replacing the pleb who vacuums the hallway with a plus-size Roomba.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_The_Hitchhiker%2...

However you are both making different points. @kardashev is making a the classic argument against a minimum wage. You're arguing that giving low income people more money will help them.

It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage. The simplest would be to pay low income people money directly instead of through an employer. A direct transfer system like this would probably satisfy economists more than a minimum wage would, since a direct payment has less of a negative effect on economic behaviour than a price mandate.

The economics of minimum wage among 'respectable' economists is debated in a similar way that the global warming "controversy" is debated by big oil. It's good for business to make people believe that there's a strong link between job losses and raising the minimum wage.

Meta-analyses of studies find an embarrassingly low level of statistical significance between job losses and raising the minimum wage:

"Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[87] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[88]"

Profits, on the other hand - the elephant in the room when it comes to studying minimum wages - almost always take the brunt of the rise in wages:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to...

>It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage.

Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

I know climate scientists are pretty much agreed on global warming. I thought economists disagreed about minimum wage still. That Wikipedia page seems to suggest that more and more economists are supporting a minimum wage over time, but there is still not a consensus. Does that sound right to you?

> Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

I was just trying to make a technical point about the existence of alternatives to the minimum wage. Many of the people who advocate these alternatives have good intentions about helping people in need.

Let's just say that I'm very impressed with the incorruptibility and dedication to the scientific method that ~95% of climate scientists hold. Especially since it's not like the oil companies haven't tried to tempt them to stray.

Not every profession is as upstanding as theirs when money and power enters the mix.

I don't know enough about the literature to comment on that part, but this is an uncharitable summary that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side.

Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient too. You can make the same argument about paying for transfers, even if you don't have any particular love of Walmart.

I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda.

I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs:

http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro...

Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562...

What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it?

>Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient

Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes.

In any case, a thought experiment: the 99% should get a $99/hour minimum, don't you think?

I bet it wasn't Greg "the rich can do no wrong" Mankiw's textbook ;)

>In any case, a thought experiment: the 99% should get a $99/hour minimum, don't you think?

What's the thought experiment designed to achieve?

Hiking to $99 / hour immediately would likely trigger a bout of extremely high inflation - likely to a level which would hamper growth (as people would be more scrambling to protect their wealth rather than spending their money on useful products and services).

Personally, I'd hike to $20 and then put the wage up by $1 / hr every three months until inflation hit ~10% (~12-15% is the point at which inflation starts hampering growth) and from then on target that level of inflation via the minimum wage and welfare payments.

That would drive a huge amount of economic growth (spending would jump) and bring down inequality to more manageable levels.

I strongly feel that large amounts of no-strings cash to people who need social-service type help is one of the best things you can do for them.

No strings housing is a good start too, and I am proud to have voted for the woman currently running the 1811 Eastlake building (Nicole Marci -- Google her or that address, if interested) in a local election this year.

I have been volunteering with various harm reduction type organizations off and on for almost 20 years.