Um, no, actually the complete opposite. Minimum wage protects the workers who are able to get the job at the minimum wage, at the expense of those even lower-paid -- the ones who would've been employed if the wage had been less (and now are not employed).
Instead, profits take a hammering and some businesses get replaced by others with no overall reduction in employment.
If you analyze who lobbies for minimum wage hikes (labor groups) and who protests them (business) it ought to be plain as day who really gets hurt and who benefits from the narrative of "wed only hurt workers by paying them more".
The hidden assumption is that lower-paid positions are less important. They aren't. There are many minimum wage positions that are more important than higher wage positions.
They're not lower paid because they're less important, they're lower paid because they're more replaceable.
So, when you force the employer to choose between not having a janitor, or paying 3.5$ more per hour, they will certainly decide to pay 3.5$ more per hour.
Assuming that there is profit, which is a good assumption as the average surplus value rate is of around 5-7%, then what will happen is that profit will decrease, and employment will stay more or less the same.
It's very important to realize that the market values replaceability, not importance.
Maybe they end up with 60-80% of the janitorial coverage that they had before.
One way is to try to orient your economy around more high-value jobs, with a generous safety net for those who can't reach it. It's a very difficult question
But maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe we don't send work offshore to lower cost countries to take advantage of wages lower than ours.
> Maybe we don't send work offshore to lower cost countries to take advantage of wages lower than ours.
Labor costs in the US are higher than in China, so this should and has happened anyway. You think it would happen to a larger degree and it could be correct. But it is a restricted perspective aside from the fact that not every work can just be outsourced to low wage countries.
it's not like lowering the minimum wage would change this much - if the cost of living is an order of magnitude lower in a third-world country, the labour costs are going to be an order of magnitude lower too
A first start would be to stop subsidizing the transportation costs through the US Navy and oil subsidies/tax breaks
But maybe I'm mistaken.
Couldn't tell you. Never heard of that study. It sounds like one study among so many that all indicate the same.
Maybe we don't send work offshore to lower cost countries to take advantage of wages lower than ours.
People DO send work offshore for that reason, and you know it. Why so childish? Why such pointless passive aggression? Why come out with that kind of nonsense bullshit? Grow up and have an adult conversation.
So the notion that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment just doesn't hold water unless you study it in a very isolated environment, where the effects of it get washed out by the larger absorptive capacity of the broader labor market.
You're going to have to work a lot harder to prove that those two facts are related than just saying them.
Perhaps you mean that the very lowest paid jobs are those that are outsourced? Are you talking about very low-wage factory jobs, such that people in China may be paid a few dollars an hour where the same in the US would be many dollars an hour? Or are you talking about IT outsourcing, which happens at values much higher than minimum wage?
If I have to guess your arguments and make them for you, then I don't really need you in this conversation at all, I suppose.
Overall unemployment isn't worse historically. Not sure why you cherry-pick youth as if it invalidates the overall stat somehow. But even that stat isn't worse historically.
What's the point in working if you're going to be paid in breadcrumbs?
Do we really want to race towards another Dickensian society?
Being able to eat. "Breadcrumbs" for you or me might not be worth it, but for someone else it could be the difference between buying food that the supermarket or stealing ketchup packets from a fast food store.
I recommend rereading “The Grapes of Wrath”, to get a taste of what poverty in this country had actually looked like, and what it actually was like to not be able to afford food. Then compare that with what currently passes as “poverty”: you get much more than that already on SNAP benefits.
I am very sympathetic to people in poverty, having grown up in it. However, let’s not pretend that poverty in today’s America is about “affording food”: everyone, no matter how poor, is able to afford food, and poverty today is less about the hunger, and more about the lifestyle you can or are forced to carry out.