The Fast Food Forward Movement

[Relic]

So why should they continually be paid more for doing the exact same job?

Well, inflation is the easy, practical, unbiased answer.

The other answers center around the idea of improving the quality of life of everyone in our society, because they are a part of our society.

[Shryke]

Even if you don't think Real Minimum Wage should increase, you are still saying the Minimum Wage (Nominal) should go up to like $11/hour.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, inflation is the easy, practical, unbiased answer.

No it isn't. The argument was that "quality of life" should continue increasing based on increases in th minimum wage, so that means real wages after inflation.

The other answers center around the idea of improving the quality of life of everyone in our society, because they are a part of our society.

If you're improving that based on legal requirements that employees be paid more in real wages each year for the exact same level of production -- you don't see a problem with that?

[DaarioKnowsBest]

If you're improving that based on legal requirements that employees be paid more in real wages each year for the exact same level of production -- you don't see a problem with that?

Then you should also consider it an offense when the price of goods and services rise up.

Coca cola used to cost a nickel now it's over a dollar for the exact same product

[Relic]

No it isn't. The argument was that "quality of life" should continue increasing based on increases in th minimum wage, so that means real wages after inflation.

Real cost of life inflation is what i mean, Jeff. Not what the Fed says but the actual prices on the street. The cost of a slice of pizza in NYC has DOUBLED in the last decade, for instance. The price of gas has nearly tripled. What has minimum wage done?

[lupis42]

Even if you don't think Real Minimum Wage should increase, you are still saying the Minimum Wage (Nominal) should go up to like $11/hour.

Why use the 1968 peak as a baseline, instead of the ~$4 from 1938 (at inception) or the average for the last 30 years of ~$6.50? Even $9/hour would be in the 90th percentile for the real minimum wage values.

I pulled numbers from here: http://www.financialramblings.com/archives/history-of-federal-minimum-wage-rate/, because it had the widest range, but a QGS did not show anything out of the ordinary about these numbers, other than the willingness to acknowledge years before 1968.

Is the goal to determine an optimal real minimum wage, or just to justify as much increase in the minimum wage as possible?

[Shryke]

Why use the 1968 peak as a baseline, instead of the ~$4 from 1938 (at inception) or the average for the last 30 years of ~$6.50? Even $9/hour would be in the 90th percentile for the real minimum wage values.

I pulled numbers from here: http://www.financial...imum-wage-rate/, because it had the widest range, but a QGS did not show anything out of the ordinary about these numbers, other than the willingness to acknowledge years before 1968.

Is the goal to determine an optimal real minimum wage, or just to justify as much increase in the minimum wage as possible?

Why not use the peak? Why should real minimum wage decrease?

It only went down cause Congress is lazy and it's not pegged to inflation.

[Relic]

If you're improving that based on legal requirements that employees be paid more in real wages each year for the exact same level of production -- you don't see a problem with that?

No, i don't see a problem with that. We're expecting people to function within a system that they will INEVITABLY always fall behind in. How does that HELP our society?

Edit - you also aren't taking into account the prices in the actual fast food joint rising in conjunction with the rising prices of gas and milk and such.

[Shryke]

While that's true, it's worth pointing out that our experience with this is in the context of small bumps in the nominal minimum wage, which means that the real value follows a sawtooth pattern, and has been hovering in the same area for 40+ years.

http://blog.supplysi...small-short-run

There's also some evidence that the long run effects of minimum wage do lead to labor surplus, through slower job growth:

http://blog.supplysi...-of-the-minimum

There's other studies showing no long-term effects. Also the minimum wage is not a sawtooth pattern, it's a decreasing slide with occasional upward bumps in the US. And the data is international.

​At best, you can saw the long-term effects are disputable.

Also, he's a supply-sider making me leary of trusting any of his judgement.

[Lord of Rhinos]

It only went down cause Congress is lazy and it's not pegged to inflation.

Not a case of laziness. Republicans don't like the minimum wage and democrats like having a campaign issue.

[Shryke]

Not a case of laziness. Republicans don't like the minimum wage and democrats like having a campaign issue.

Obviously to the first, the second is just silliness.

[lupis42]

There's other studies showing no long-term effects. Also the minimum wage is not a sawtooth pattern, it's a decreasing slide with occasional upward bumps in the US. And the data is international.

​At best, you can saw the long-term effects are disputable.

Disputable is all I'm claiming. You can say that there's no evidence of short term negative effects on labor pretty confidently, but there's less certainty around long term effects.

As for the us pattern, if you look at the graph from the other source, (http://www.financialramblings.com/images/minimum-wage-inflation-small.png), sawtooth describes the behavior over the last 30 years pretty well - it slides down with inflation, and spikes up with congressional adjustments. It's actually at almost exactly the same level now as it was in 1982. If you look at the full history, it's been pretty erratic, but the last 10 years have averaged ~$7, more than half again the average from the first 10 years.

Why not use the peak? Why should real minimum wage decrease?

Why should real minimum wage have increased in the first place? Because the value wasn't optimal. If it's too high or too low, it should be adjusted.

I don't see any more value in starting from a historical high than I do in a historical low if the goal is to find the optimal value.

(I agree Congress should have pegged it to inflation in the first place, but what congress does and what should happen haven't ever exactly been similar).

[ThinkerX]

So why should they continually be paid more for doing the exact same job?

Why do lawyers deserve extortionate fees? Why does the corporate elite deserve bonuses for running their businesses into the dirt - as happened with the recent financial catastrophe? Those fools deliberately took one stupid risk after another, effectively bankrupted their companies, got a government bailout, and then awarded themselves giant bonuses.

Now...until *YOU* put in a few months flipping burgers, dealing with corporate criminality from on high, and trying to support YOUR family on that income, you have no business making comments like that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Real cost of life inflation is what i mean, Jeff. Not what the Fed says but the actual prices on the street. The cost of a slice of pizza in NYC has DOUBLED in the last decade, for instance. The price of gas has nearly tripled. What has minimum wage done?

Then what you're really talking about is the minimum wage keeping pace with the real rate of inflation so that living standards with that wage will remain constant. That's a concept that makes sense if you support a minimum wage. But that wasn't the point that was made above.

The point made above that I was criticizing was for the minimum wage to keep rising so as to increase actual living standards. That's legislating increases that are greater than the real rate of inflction/cost of living.

Why do lawyers deserve extortionate fees?

I never said they did. The law really doesn't set lawyer wages though -- the market does. Lawyers are free to -- and often do -- increase or decrease their rates. And people are free to pay them or not. If you'll notice, there's been a huge increase in "do-it-yourself" kits for a great many legal issues, including guardianship, wills, contracts, etc., precisely because some lawyers have priced themselves out of the market.

Why does the corporate elite deserve bonuses for running their businesses into the dirt - as happened with the recent financial catastrophe? Those fools deliberately took one stupid risk after another, effectively bankrupted their companies, got a government bailout, and then awarded themselves giant bonuses.

What does one have to do with the other? Where I have said that such people "deserve" anything, including bailouts or bonuses?

Now...until *YOU* put in a few months flipping burgers, dealing with corporate criminality from on high, and trying to support YOUR family on that income, you have no business making comments like that.

Sure I do. I can make any comments I wish, and you have no more right to speak on this issue than does anyone else.

Just as an aside, I have worked minimum wage jobs in my life, though my experience was low enough down the chain of command that I wasn't a witness to much "corporate criminality from on high". I wouldn't think that most companies would tell their minimum wage workers what criminal conduct was being committed in the boardroom, or let them sit in on meetings to witness it themselves, but maybe your experiences were different.

But actually, you quoted me asking a question, not making a comment. My question was pretty simple. Why should the law mandate that such workers continually get paid more in real terms for doing the exact same work? I mean, that's not asking why we have a minimum wage, or even whether the minimum wage should be indexed to the real cost of living. It's asking why the minimum wage should be increased each year above increases to the real cost of living. Such that flipping 500 burgers is enough to buy 20 gallons of milk one year, 21 the next, 22 the next etc. etc.. Money is simply a medium of exchange, and I don't see the logic for saying that you should be abl to trade a flipped burger for more and more stuff each year.

So, I asked.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

It can't be established that fast food work and productivity stays the same value always to society and companies

If burger flipping restaraunts average flipping 300 burgers a day in a year then ten years later economy or business goes up and they are flipping 600 a day for the same pay.

And if one is asking for minimum wage to keep up with the rate of inflation they aren't asking for more stuff, it's asking for more money to get the same stuff that has inflated to where its unaffordable, stuff needed like food and shelter.

[Stag Country]

Why should the pay for every single job be sufficient to support a single adult living alone? People can share living spaces, expenses, etc. There is no logical connection between the value of particular labor and being able to live alone as an adult. Some labor just isn't worth enough to support that standard of living.

Exactly. Minimum wage is not designed to support a boilerplate notion of people living on their own and supporting themselves. It is designed to bring people out of poverty. That is it.

[Shryke]

Disputable is all I'm claiming. You can say that there's no evidence of short term negative effects on labor pretty confidently, but there's less certainty around long term effects.

As for the us pattern, if you look at the graph from the other source, (http://www.financial...ation-small.png), sawtooth describes the behavior over the last 30 years pretty well - it slides down with inflation, and spikes up with congressional adjustments. It's actually at almost exactly the same level now as it was in 1982. If you look at the full history, it's been pretty erratic, but the last 10 years have averaged ~$7, more than half again the average from the first 10 years.

There's a huge drop across the 80s that's never corrected. It's an overall downward trend since the early 70s.

Why should real minimum wage have increased in the first place? Because the value wasn't optimal. If it's too high or too low, it should be adjusted.

I don't see any more value in starting from a historical high than I do in a historical low if the goal is to find the optimal value.

(I agree Congress should have pegged it to inflation in the first place, but what congress does and what should happen haven't ever exactly been similar).

You start from a high because there seems no ill effects and pegging the minimum wage as high as you can without fucking anything else up is pretty much the best policy to go with.

[Shryke]

Exactly. Minimum wage is not designed to support a boilerplate notion of people living on their own and supporting themselves. It is designed to bring people out of poverty. That is it.

Those are the same thing.

"designed to bring people out of poverty" == "designed to support some decided level of self-sufficiency"

Both terms you are using are incredibly nebulous.

[Stag Country]

Those are the same thing.

"designed to bring people out of poverty" == "designed to support some decided level of self-sufficiency"

Both terms you are using are incredibly nebulous.

Um, no, they aren't.

The comment I was responding to dealt with the fallacy of believing individuals should be expected to be able to live alone as adults off of minimum wage alone. That is simply not what minimum wage is designed for and anyone adovcating an increase of minumum wage until that is possible is living in a fantasy land that isn't connected to reality. The expectation of minimum wage is not for a 14 year old working a McJob to be able to pay their own rent and groceries. Some work, as FLOW correctly notes, is simply not intended to provide an individual with a career or with a self-sufficient life style, it is, by deisgn, intended to be supplemental income at best.

[Shryke]

Um, no, they aren't.

Oh yes they are.

The comment I was responding to dealt with the fallacy of believing individuals should be expected to be able to live alone as adults off of minimum wage alone. That is simply not what minimum wage is designed for and anyone adovcating an increase of minumum wage until that is possible is living in a fantasy land that isn't connected to reality. The expectation of minimum wage is not for a 14 year old working a McJob to be able to pay their own rent and groceries. Some work, as FLOW correctly notes, is simply not intended to provide an individual with a career or with a self-sufficient life style, it is, by deisgn, intended to be supplemental income at best.

And yet you said "It is designed to bring people out of poverty". A concept for which your paragraph above is a good definition. You are simply using a different and completely unstated definition of poverty and acting like this constitutes a fundamental difference rather then an opinion on what the definition of "not poor" is.

Because there is no real definition of poverty, the minimum wage is designed simply to provide general, loosely defined societal benefits centred around raising the standard of living. Potentially up to and including economic self-sufficiency.