3:51 To be fair, if those workers weren't making enough to live on before (or had to work multiple jobs in order to do so), then being unable to find a job at all isn't that much of a downgrade, especially compared to how much of an improvement it is for the ones working at the higher wage (at least assuming that wage _is_ enough to live on). And hey, you can help the people who are unemployed by implementing unemployment benefits.
@@night6724"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of a decent living." ―FDR, _the inventor of minimum wage law,_ on the subject of minimum wage.
@@night6724 h t t p s large intestine bladed weapon bladed weapon b e n j a m i n s t u d e b a k e r black hole c o m bladed weapon 2 0 1 4 bladed weapon 1 0 bladed weapon 2 8 bladed weapon m i s c o n c e p t i o n s short-range propellant m i n i m u m short-range propellant w a g e short-range propellant j o b s short-range propellant a r e n t short-range propellant s u p p o s e d short-range propellant t o short-range propellant b e short-range propellant c a r e e r s bladed weapon
@@night6724 The point is that minimum wage jobs _are_ supposed to be livable, and that's literally why the minimum wage exists. To say that "Minimum wage jobs aren’t suppose [sic] to be careers" is an objective falsehood.
@@night6724 Except that not everyone who works those "entry level jobs" Is going to move on to a better one. Not because some of them are just stupid or lazy like that, but because _that's fundamentally not how the economy works._ It's like a game of musical chairs: there just aren't enough "great jobs" for everyone to get one, and the people who don't will be stuck with their "entry level jobs" indefinitely.
@@night6724 "Let’s say that our 1.5 million adult minimum wage workers all quit their jobs, took out student loans, and pursued 4 year degrees. Wouldn’t they all get better jobs once they got degrees? Not necessarily. The trouble is that our society does not create jobs to fit the extant skills of its workers-it educates its workers so that they will be able to do the jobs our society needs to thrive. For instance, if a bunch of people decide to get journalism degrees, this does not increase the number of available jobs in the field of journalism-we only need so many journalists, no matter how many people there are who want to do the job. The increased competition for the same number of jobs only serves to allow employers to pay less for the same skills. So if our 1.5 million adult minimum wage workers attempted to enter more lucrative fields, this would not increase the number of total people employed in those fields-instead, it would depress wages and reduce the economic value of the skills the workers had gained. The same number of people would still be unable to get these jobs, and the ones who would get them would earn less. What happens to people with college degrees who are unable to get jobs that take advantage of their skill set? They end up working in low-skill jobs, which often pay minimum wage. This is because the economy still needs 1.5 million people to fill those minimum wage jobs. McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and other such firms hire adults because there are not enough young people to do all the jobs they need doing. These firms don’t care if the adults they hire have degrees (indeed, about 1/3rd of adult minimum wage workers already have bachelor’s or associate’s degrees). Because their skills are not relevant to the job they’re doing, adult minimum wage workers will not be paid any premium for the skills they may have. It is always in the interest of individual firms to drive down their labor costs, and so these firms will pay as little as possible. Because there are always adults who can’t find jobs that match up well with their skills, there is always a large surplus of adults available to do minimum wage jobs. The intense competition for low-skill jobs means that without minimum wage laws, these people could be paid what poor workers during the 19th century were paid-the bare minimum required to prevent them from starving to death. It doesn’t matter if every adult had a PhD-we would still need 1.5 million adults to work minimum wage jobs, and we would still have the same surplus of workers unable to get jobs in the fields for which they had relevant skills. Consequently, the state instituted the minimum wage for the explicit purpose of preventing this kind of outcome, to ensure that every person who ends up stuck with a minimum wage job can achieve a minimum standard of living beyond subsistence." -Benjamin Studebaker, _Misconceptions: “Minimum Wage Jobs Aren’t Supposed to be Careers”_
i want to ask what are the pros and cons of government intervention in the market for necessity goods like egg, fish and chicken. Consider the effects to both consumers and producers.
disgusting. companies would price labor lower and lower without a stable minimum wage. workers would essentially live-off a subsistence--barely enough to keep them alive. you're too busy analyzing an ideal, perfect market when the reality of the world---poverty, unemployment, landlessness, exploitation--is staring right at you in the face. has the "free" market corrected any of that yet?
I am. "oh, we were forced to go automated. they forced our hand! we went from making 100% profits to only 80% profits because we have to pay $5 more per person!!" greed.
Unlike with the minimum wage I mostly agree with your assessment of rent control, gas prices, and airline fares with some caveats I may come back and post on here later.
Minimalism wage laws are no different. Even most leftist economists see MW as a terrible way to redistribute wealth. It harms the most vulnerable people in society, who are the ones the MW advocates claim to care about.
Minimum wage help the GDP consumption, because the money is good enough for surviving. he/she need/force to spend those money for surviving, when the money transfering around, it boost the market purchasing power, and everyone will get the benefit indirectly
Not everyone does. The minimum wage prices those whose labor is not worth the age into unemployment. Unemployment hurts them, the GDP, and everyone hurts from their unemployment.
@@sybo59 actually no it hasn't. Once you remove China which to be fair could be called state capitalist (probably not what you're thinking of) We've made almost ZERO progress globally and in the West we've even went backwards (mainly in the Americasphere) Even if what you say were true (it's not) how do you attribute that automatically to capitalism? Innovation, growth in production, globalization these things aren't capitalist they're just human
Wage and Price. Ontrols WORK !! Nixon fryer to undermine the “ speculators” , the greedy people. All you need is the same price and same wage for eternity. It works !! It’s the Gospel of Matthew.. loving your neighbor. Bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven.
Try our interactive practices! Test yourself on price ceilings: mru.io/cqe
Test yourself on price floors: mru.io/zct
it’s really worth learning
3:51 To be fair, if those workers weren't making enough to live on before (or had to work multiple jobs in order to do so), then being unable to find a job at all isn't that much of a downgrade, especially compared to how much of an improvement it is for the ones working at the higher wage (at least assuming that wage _is_ enough to live on). And hey, you can help the people who are unemployed by implementing unemployment benefits.
@@night6724"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."
"By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of a decent living."
―FDR, _the inventor of minimum wage law,_ on the subject of minimum wage.
@@night6724
h
t
t
p
s
large intestine
bladed weapon
bladed weapon
b
e
n
j
a
m
i
n
s
t
u
d
e
b
a
k
e
r
black hole
c
o
m
bladed weapon
2
0
1
4
bladed weapon
1
0
bladed weapon
2
8
bladed weapon
m
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
short-range propellant
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
short-range propellant
w
a
g
e
short-range propellant
j
o
b
s
short-range propellant
a
r
e
n
t
short-range propellant
s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d
short-range propellant
t
o
short-range propellant
b
e
short-range propellant
c
a
r
e
e
r
s
bladed weapon
@@night6724 The point is that minimum wage jobs _are_ supposed to be livable, and that's literally why the minimum wage exists. To say that "Minimum wage jobs aren’t suppose [sic] to be careers" is an objective falsehood.
@@night6724 Except that not everyone who works those "entry level jobs" Is going to move on to a better one. Not because some of them are just stupid or lazy like that, but because _that's fundamentally not how the economy works._ It's like a game of musical chairs: there just aren't enough "great jobs" for everyone to get one, and the people who don't will be stuck with their "entry level jobs" indefinitely.
@@night6724 "Let’s say that our 1.5 million adult minimum wage workers all quit their jobs, took out student loans, and pursued 4 year degrees. Wouldn’t they all get better jobs once they got degrees? Not necessarily. The trouble is that our society does not create jobs to fit the extant skills of its workers-it educates its workers so that they will be able to do the jobs our society needs to thrive. For instance, if a bunch of people decide to get journalism degrees, this does not increase the number of available jobs in the field of journalism-we only need so many journalists, no matter how many people there are who want to do the job. The increased competition for the same number of jobs only serves to allow employers to pay less for the same skills. So if our 1.5 million adult minimum wage workers attempted to enter more lucrative fields, this would not increase the number of total people employed in those fields-instead, it would depress wages and reduce the economic value of the skills the workers had gained. The same number of people would still be unable to get these jobs, and the ones who would get them would earn less. What happens to people with college degrees who are unable to get jobs that take advantage of their skill set? They end up working in low-skill jobs, which often pay minimum wage.
This is because the economy still needs 1.5 million people to fill those minimum wage jobs. McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and other such firms hire adults because there are not enough young people to do all the jobs they need doing. These firms don’t care if the adults they hire have degrees (indeed, about 1/3rd of adult minimum wage workers already have bachelor’s or associate’s degrees). Because their skills are not relevant to the job they’re doing, adult minimum wage workers will not be paid any premium for the skills they may have. It is always in the interest of individual firms to drive down their labor costs, and so these firms will pay as little as possible. Because there are always adults who can’t find jobs that match up well with their skills, there is always a large surplus of adults available to do minimum wage jobs. The intense competition for low-skill jobs means that without minimum wage laws, these people could be paid what poor workers during the 19th century were paid-the bare minimum required to prevent them from starving to death. It doesn’t matter if every adult had a PhD-we would still need 1.5 million adults to work minimum wage jobs, and we would still have the same surplus of workers unable to get jobs in the fields for which they had relevant skills. Consequently, the state instituted the minimum wage for the explicit purpose of preventing this kind of outcome, to ensure that every person who ends up stuck with a minimum wage job can achieve a minimum standard of living beyond subsistence."
-Benjamin Studebaker, _Misconceptions: “Minimum Wage Jobs Aren’t Supposed to be Careers”_
The shortage did not happen until 1973 and OPEC was indeed the cause.
"shortages never happen in a free market" do you not believe that statement? Higher prices = reduced demand. Higher prices = more supply.
i want to ask what are the pros and cons of government intervention in the market for necessity goods like egg, fish and chicken. Consider the effects to both consumers and producers.
Because corporations will do anything for profits.
hmmm
But the wage subsidy creates a dead-weight loss oto.
disgusting. companies would price labor lower and lower without a stable minimum wage. workers would essentially live-off a subsistence--barely enough to keep them alive. you're too busy analyzing an ideal, perfect market when the reality of the world---poverty, unemployment, landlessness, exploitation--is staring right at you in the face. has the "free" market corrected any of that yet?
4
Who’s here in 2024 👀
I am. "oh, we were forced to go automated. they forced our hand! we went from making 100% profits to only 80% profits because we have to pay $5 more per person!!" greed.
how does the government obtain financing for wage subsidies for workers?
Tax revenues and/or investment programs
Unlike with the minimum wage I mostly agree with your assessment of rent control, gas prices, and airline fares with some caveats I may come back and post on here later.
Are you saying that you don't agree with what he said about minimum wage laws? It's all the same thing so why agree with some and not the others?
Minimalism wage laws are no different. Even most leftist economists see MW as a terrible way to redistribute wealth. It harms the most vulnerable people in society, who are the ones the MW advocates claim to care about.
idiot. price controls also affect wages. you can't have a $500 minimum wage without employment being affected.
Minimum wage help the GDP consumption, because the money is good enough for surviving. he/she need/force to spend those money for surviving, when the money transfering around, it boost the market purchasing power, and everyone will get the benefit indirectly
Not everyone does. The minimum wage prices those whose labor is not worth the age into unemployment. Unemployment hurts them, the GDP, and everyone hurts from their unemployment.
Unless the money _isn't_ good enough for surviving.
"in a free market we would never see a shortage" * laughs in the entire history of capitalism *
Capitalism has brought unprecedented abundance and has nearly doubled human life expectancy.
@@sybo59 actually no it hasn't.
Once you remove China which to be fair could be called state capitalist (probably not what you're thinking of)
We've made almost ZERO progress globally and in the West we've even went backwards (mainly in the Americasphere)
Even if what you say were true (it's not) how do you attribute that automatically to capitalism? Innovation, growth in production, globalization these things aren't capitalist they're just human
@@afgor1088 shut up tanky
There wouldn’t be a shortage, it’s just that nobody would be able to afford it 🤣
@@dayviduh both
Wage and Price. Ontrols WORK !! Nixon fryer to undermine the “ speculators” , the greedy people. All you need is the same price and same wage for eternity. It works !! It’s the Gospel of Matthew.. loving your neighbor. Bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven.
seems that this class is basically just a uncriticized fantasy of capitalism!
ok tanky
Yes welcome to Econ 101 💀
Wage subsidies = Corporate welfare.
anyone here for an assignment