EconomyFollow

I have a research team that inevitably posts here with links and stuff. So thanks for that.

Is that the whozit with the tubes and the cats and the funny maymays?

Maybe you haven't bee paid because you haven't submitted any hours?




How's the new job working out? Happier? Indifferent?

Same job as before, different industry. Nicer boss. Smaller office. (I share a closet with the other analyst). There is no free coffee, but I can mooch tea off the Help Desk office across the library.

More creative freedom but much stricter rules since we're dealing with medical records. (It's animal medical records so it's not HIPPA level stuff, but still.)

As for not submitting hours, I asked about it. We don't have to bother. We're monthly salaried and HR really doesn't care when we work; they've got professors and veterinarians logging whenever hours and they let each department handle their own salaried schedules internally.

Edited, Oct 28th 2015 4:13pm by Catwho

Wait. Maybe I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that there is a higher percentage of people earning *exactly* minimum wage who are heads of households than there are among those earning just a bit more than minimum wage, or lower, or the same? That's what I meant by the ratio is pretty similar. In the range we're talking about, most of them are probably going to be new/young workers. As people get older and more experienced (and frankly, more responsible), their wage will tend to go up. Hence my point that you're mostly increasing the wages of those who aren't those we're presumably trying to help with a minimum wage hike, while actually hurting those who are.

If the current minimum is say $8/hour and the percentage of those supporting household is higher in the $12-$15/hour range than in the $8-$12/hour range, then raising minimum wage from $8/hour to $12/hour will hurt more of those you're trying to help than it will help. Get it?

Still missing the key piece of information: What percentage of them are heads of households and/or sole breadwinners? Isn't that the question we're addressing here? Also, how long does one typically spend in that near minimum wage range? Because the claimed reason for pushing for a living wage rests on the assumption that there's a large number of folks earning near minimum wages who need more in order to support them selves independent of other financial support. So not students living at home. Not young adults sharing expenses with a few friends. Not spouses working part time to add a bit extra to the household finances.

And, as I mentioned above, we also have to look at the number of those who are primary financial support for a household who are in the range just above "near minimum wage". Because that's the set of people who will actually be harmed by a minimum wage hike. Their cost of living will go up, but their wages wont (at least not at first). As I mentioned, all will adjust over time, but presumably the whole point of this exercise is to bump up some people's wages ahead of said adjustment. But you kinda need to make sure the targeted people are those who benefit most and aren't those who are hurt most.

My innate suspicion is that there's a higher ratio of primary household providers in the range just above the proposed minimum wage increase (lets say $10.10/hour to maybe $15/hour) than there are between the current minimum and $10.10. I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt it. So you're going to benefit a lot of students and stoners and bored housewives with empty nest syndrome, while actually hurting a lot of struggling single mothers.

A first step might be not calling them sociopaths. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that most people are actually able to earn more than minimum wage (or even "near minimum wage"). And certainly an even higher percentage are able to over time. That 30% figure is the number at any given time. But there's a constant flow of new workers entering the workforce at the bottom, and presumably a similar number leaving that range as their wages increase above the near minimum wage range. I couldn't tell you what percentage of people work their whole lives stuck in the near minimum wage range, but it's got to be pretty darn small.

So yeah, you'll have to forgive me taking your complaints with a massive grain of salt. What you are describing is not remotely typical. And we certainly should not embark on some broad policy changes because of it. Babies and bathwater and whatnot.



If you are being honest about your situation, then it's not "fine and normal". But that's the point. Most people are able to improve their economic condition over the course of their lives. If you have not, it's not because the system is broken, but because you have made a set of choices (or I suppose been ridiculously unlucky, just to give you a possible benefit of the doubt) that have resulted in an extremely rare outcome for you personally. But again, that's not normal. Most people don't get stuck in low wage jobs their whole lives. I know that's a narrative folks like to talk about and attempt to push for political change over, but it's just not the typical American worker experience.

If you're lucky, you'll read a review of a book about it in a conservative blog and then lecture us all on how you never trust anyone's word but always seek out the data for yourself.

Well, that's typical. Can't counter the argument, so attack the person.

Here's a bit about the effect of raising the minimum wage. Yes. It's from Heritage. Feel free to assume that it's research and figures must all be terrible lies, while failing to bother to obtain countering information if you really want to keep burying your head in the sand.


Raising the minimum wage, especially calling for a "living wage" is less about good economic policy and a lot more about political rhetoric. It's just so easy to call for it absent any facts that it'll do any good, and then condemn those who oppose it as haters of the poor. The reality is that at best, if a minimum wage hike is small, it has little or no effect on poverty and the plight of the working poor. At worse, generally if the hike is large (like that proposed by living wage advocates), it has a primarily harmful effect on both poverty and especially on the working poor. Basically the very people you most think you're going to help will be most hurt.

But heaven forbid we insert a bit of rational thought into our political decision making. Let's just knee jerk react to everything instead.

Answer my question, Gbaji. Do you post here at work or not?

---> ( (

I like the way that chart 1 shows a nose-dive all during the Bush years.

ALSO: If I'm reading that chart correctly, 25% of the people earning minimum wage are married. I guess they don't count in gbaji's calculaton because reasons.

ALSO: ALSO: After each of the last 2-3 increases in minimum wage the purchasing power of those so paid increased dramatically. This negatively impacted the national economy badly because....other reasons?

Great cite, gbaji. Would you like a compress for that hole you shot in your foot?