jcd11235 0 #76 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat would be WAY too high, and would certainly reduce employment. Possibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. I agree. Increasing pay by $1 per year for a few years would probably have no negative effect on employment. There wouldn't even be any need to end such raises after a few years. Of course, I'm not sure what good a raise of approximately 2¢ per week, as you suggest, will do.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #77 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat would be WAY too high, and would certainly reduce employment. Possibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. I agree. Increasing pay by $1 per year for a few years would probably have no negative effect on employment. There wouldn't even be any need to end such raises after a few years. Of course, I'm not sure what good a raise of approximately 2¢ per week, as you suggest, will do. Keep doing it then until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. Then inflation proof the final figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #78 August 16, 2012 QuotePossibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. Really? Assuming say a $10 an hour start, that would be a 10% increase in wage for the first year, a 9% increase in the second year etc. Those are some hefty increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #79 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat would be WAY too high, and would certainly reduce employment. Possibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. I agree. Increasing pay by $1 per year for a few years would probably have no negative effect on employment. There wouldn't even be any need to end such raises after a few years. Of course, I'm not sure what good a raise of approximately 2¢ per week, as you suggest, will do. Keep doing it then until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. Then inflation proof the final figure. Keep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #80 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuotePossibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. Really? Assuming say a $10 an hour start, that would be a 10% increase in wage for the first year, a 9% increase in the second year etc. Those are some hefty increases. From a very low base. This extra income, unlike tax cuts for the rich, will also be spent to give an immediate boost to the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #81 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat would be WAY too high, and would certainly reduce employment. Possibly, but if done a $1 a year for a few years probably not. I agree. Increasing pay by $1 per year for a few years would probably have no negative effect on employment. There wouldn't even be any need to end such raises after a few years. Of course, I'm not sure what good a raise of approximately 2¢ per week, as you suggest, will do. Keep doing it then until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. Then inflation proof the final figure. Keep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #82 August 16, 2012 QuoteFrom a very low base. This extra income, unlike tax cuts for the rich, will also be spent to give an immediate boost to the economy. Not such a low base if you have 500 people working for you. Now we are talking over a million dollars, and that is not even taking overtime into account. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #83 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #84 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #85 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. If he raises the hourly minimum wage a dollar an hour (each year); isn't that $40 a week? $2080 a year per employee? and that is $20,800 per employee, over ten years? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #86 August 16, 2012 Not including oevrtime you are correct. JCD is playing a little semantics game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #87 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. I would suggest that increasing the minimum wage to some point between $7.75 and $9.00 per hour (probably ~$8/hr), and indexing that to inflation would be more appropriate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #88 August 16, 2012 Quote If he raises the hourly minimum wage a dollar an hour (each year); isn't that $40 a week? Yes, but $1 per hour per year isn't what he proposed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #89 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. $15 an hour was my estimate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #90 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. $15 an hour was my estimate. And I asked you how you arrived at that figure. You then decided $20 per hour would be better. Then you changed your mind and suggested $7.2505 per hour (i.e., $1 per year increase) would be a better minimum wage. Are you going back to $15 per hour? That's WAY too much and would decrease employment.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #91 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. $15 an hour was my estimate. And I asked you how you arrived at that figure. You then decided $20 per hour would be better. Then you changed your mind and suggested $7.2505 per hour (i.e., $1 per year increase) would be a better minimum wage. Are you going back to $15 per hour? That's WAY too much and would decrease employment. My suggestion is $1 a year increase in the minimum wage until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. In my opinion somewhere between $15 and $20. You say the sweet point is about $9. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #92 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKeep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. $15 an hour was my estimate. And I asked you how you arrived at that figure. You then decided $20 per hour would be better. Then you changed your mind and suggested $7.2505 per hour (i.e., $1 per year increase) would be a better minimum wage. Are you going back to $15 per hour? That's WAY too much and would decrease employment. My suggestion is $1 a year increase in the minimum wage until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. In my opinion somewhere between $15 and $20. You say the sweet point is about $9. I think you mean $1 per hour per year increase in the minimum wage. That's much different from $1 per year increase. I suspect that $1 an hour might already be past the "sweet spot" at which there is zero effect on employment. $2 per hour, even implemented over two years, would almost certainly be past that point.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #93 August 16, 2012 > but at some point things would stabilize and a working couple might be able to afford >a small apartment near their work, no matter where that job was. How do you figure? Housing prices will rise commensurate with salaries (since people will be able to afford higher rent prices) and those apartments will stay just as unaffordable. > There would probably have to be some controls in place to keep employers from >abusing employee commutes ("Your office is in Redding, but we expect you to >commute to a job site in San Francisco for the next six months, with no travel time or >mileage reimbursement") I would think the best prevention against that would be potential employees who decide "no, I don't want to drive that distance." On the other hand, someone might want to do that - and if so they should be able to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #94 August 16, 2012 QuoteI think you mean $1 per hour per year increase in the minimum wage. That's much different from $1 per year increase. I don't agree with him, but since all the numbers we have been talking about for minimum wage have been hourly numbers, I think when he mentions a $1 increase it is pretty clear what is meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #95 August 16, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Keep doing what? Giving 2¢ per week raises? A dollar a year for ten years. Not too revolutionary. $1 per year is approximately equal to 2¢ per week. I doubt it would have any noticeable effect for anyone, not even if such a raise was given every year for ten years. And then inflation proofed. So, you want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.2505, and inflation proof that figure. Fair enough. That's much more reasonable than your proposal to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour. $15 an hour was my estimate. And I asked you how you arrived at that figure. You then decided $20 per hour would be better. Then you changed your mind and suggested $7.2505 per hour (i.e., $1 per year increase) would be a better minimum wage. Are you going back to $15 per hour? That's WAY too much and would decrease employment. My suggestion is $1 a year increase in the minimum wage until the employment 'sweet' spot is reached. In my opinion somewhere between $15 and $20. You say the sweet point is about $9. Where's the proof behind your inuendos, suppositions, maybes, repetitions, estimates and wild-assed guesses? Any 'real' scholarly support to your 'ideas'? Or, are you just looking for a raise? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #96 August 16, 2012 QuoteHow do you figure? Housing prices will rise commensurate with salaries (since people will be able to afford higher rent prices) and those apartments will stay just as unaffordable. Only if there is no vacancy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #97 August 16, 2012 >Only if there is no vacancy. Correct! And why would there be no vacancy? Because everyone is making more money and can afford to live in the "good" places (i.e. close to work.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #98 August 16, 2012 Quote> but at some point things would stabilize and a working couple might be able to afford >a small apartment near their work, no matter where that job was. How do you figure? Housing prices will rise commensurate with salaries (since people will be able to afford higher rent prices) and those apartments will stay just as unaffordable. Housing prices generally fluctuate with the median, or maybe the mean, but not so much with the absolute minimum. While there would surely be a "trickle up" effect from raising minimum wage in high land-value areas, the bulk of the change (in percent and real dollars) would be at the very bottom of the scale. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #99 August 16, 2012 >Housing prices generally fluctuate with the median, or maybe the mean, but not so >much with the absolute minimum. Agreed - because the absolute minimum wage earners are effectively priced out of the real estate market. By raising the minimum wage more people will cross the line and be able to afford housing. That will be a minor effect until vacancy declines to near zero at which point housing prices will rise dramatically due to undersupply - thus pricing those same people out of the market. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #100 August 16, 2012 Quote>Housing prices generally fluctuate with the median, or maybe the mean, but not so >much with the absolute minimum. Agreed - because the absolute minimum wage earners are effectively priced out of the real estate market. By raising the minimum wage more people will cross the line and be able to afford housing. That will be a minor effect until vacancy declines to near zero at which point housing prices will rise dramatically due to undersupply - thus pricing those same people out of the market. If the minimum wage were indexed to the cost of housing (annual or biannual updates maybe), that raise in housing would trigger a corresponding increase in minimum wage. Also, I'm not talking about a minimum wage earner being able to buy a house or anything. I said a working couple (two minimum wage earners) might be able to afford a small apartment near their work. Right now, the only people who can live on minimum wage are those who live with parents or a whole bunch of family friends. Arbitrary raises obviously won't fix that. My proposal (that I'm arguing in favor of, while not being entirely convinced) is that rather than arbitrary, the minimum be variable, indexed to the cost of living. Given that the entire goal of having a minimum wage is to establish some subsistence level income, it seems like a logical match. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
