The problem is that they have learned the wrong skill set. If all you can get is minimum wage after learning a needed skill they you obviously have been misled into learning a skill that is not needed by industry. Raising the minimum wage is not the solution for the working poor.
True to a some degree as far as learning the wrong skills. Very true that raising the minimum is not a solution for the unskilled worker.
If REAL inflation (not fake CPI numbers) was relatively flat, no one would be discussing raising the min wage at all. Ideally, you want any inflation to increase your asset prices (time value transfer) while only affecting you (if at all) on your marginal utility of money curve. Obviously, the greatest negative affect is when inflation affects your subsistence spending. So somebody tell the Fed to keep inflation low, and nobody will bring up the min wage subject. Wait - I forgot - there IS no inflation....
I understand what you are arguing. Let's review what we've said thus far. Correct me if I misquote you. You said that workers had been screwed over the past several decades. I asked how, you said that - essentially - corporate CEOs and business owners (and their like) had seen big pay raises coming from big efficiencies that have driven profits over the years. Workers had not seen that in what you said were predominantly stagnant wages. I then asked you why these workers did not quit if the salary they were being paid did not compensate them appropriately, and you responded that they had no where to go - and there wasn't much to choose from. If that is indeed the case (and I think some of that is bang on) then wouldn't you say that the equilibrium between what a corporation can pay for a job to be performed is essentially reached? Ie, if labor is a service provided (and it is) then the cost of that service in the market is already where it needs to be in order to get the job done at the quality needed? When markets improve, and companies find their workers leaving for greener pastures, what must they do? They have to increase salaries and benefits to attract talent. This eventually drives people to those companies when the salaries and benefits are "competitive". How is a business owner obligated to share efficiencies of the business - which someone appropriately pointed out could come from business investment, equipment, smarter purchasing, etc - not through employee work - with the employees who did not contribute their salaries to the purchasing of said equipment, items, investment, etc? It sounds to me like you're talking about socialism here. Privatize the losses and investments, but socialize the profits.
Precisely! The only reason people are unhappy with wages paid to them is because they see the cost of living rising faster (much faster in some cases) than their income. This result is a decrease in the quality of life, and results in unhappiness. So the real problem isn't wages, or increased efficiencies or evil CEOs making more money because of profits. The real problem is inflation and a declining quality of life. You can lay THAT problem at the foot of the government - through the actions of the central bank.
This is a fundamental problem - looking at the surface result while ignoring or missing the source of the issue. It is a misdirection and usually means some folks are hiding what is really happening by trying to focus attention elsewhere or on someone else.
I ran some numbers. 40 hrs a week @$7.75 and as an example a new $10.00 min wage. The Fed picks up an extra 13.50 a week in new revenue. Social security 5.58 Plus the employer kicks in another 5.58 Medicare $1.30 additional revenue. ----------------------------
I posted on another thread. Volcker then Greenspan both encouraged wage deflation to contain inflation. What changed? Imo, it's a back door method to raise revenue for the Fed and SS.