Showing posts with label minimum wages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minimum wages. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Student reaction to minimum wage issue

In this reaction essay the student considered some of the issues surrounding the minimum wage, and also applied the issue to her own work experience at a local hotel. 

  In class, we have been discussing many different topics already, but one really stood out to me. On the week one schedule, there were a list of different videos that we should watch on Prageru.com. I watched a few and then I got to the one that really sparked my interest. "How the Minimum Wage Hurts Young People" which was not on the list, but it came up as a suggestion while watching the others. This video talked about the brutal reality of how the system works. This caught my attention because it actually applies to me. 

   First off, the video starts with an example. It talks about if you owned a nice piece of land and needed the grass cut, who would you pick? Since cutting grass does not require much skill, you would probably chose the person who is willing to do it for the cheapest, which works out until...the government gets involved. If the government got involved and created a law saying you have to pay 40 percent more than you have been, things would change. Since you have to pay more, you are going to want someone skilled in cutting grass, not just a young person in the neighborhood. Everyone wants more when it comes to spending more. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, people ages 16-19 had an unemployment rate of 15% in January 2017, while people at the ages of 45-54 had the rate of 3.3%. 

   As stated above, this subject personally matters to me. I work at a hotel here in Springfield, and we are going through this change right now. I work at the front desk and there is a front office manager, assistant manager, two full time employees, me (I work only one or two days on the weekend), and two night auditors. This is crazy if you think about it. There are 3 shifts at 8 hours each. There is no room for call offs, etc. but there is no money to hire anymore people. My manager has interviewed a lot of people throughout my time there, but maybe hired 2 or 3 and do not keep them for a long time. In addition to not being able to hire more workers, some periods of time hours get cut MAJORLY. During Christmas Break, I was lucky to get 8 hours each week, but luckily I got hours from our sister hotel, who coincidentally, was in the hiring process, and short on staff. Less revenue for the hotel means less money for the workers, no matter what age.

   I am very lucky because I am not working to survive, but if someone had my job and was trying to actually pay bills and live off of it, there would be no way to. People my age feel this "phase" that workplaces are going through because we have no experience yet and they want what they pay for, since they only have a little bit of money to spend on workers. It makes sense, but I wish our economy was not so bad that it had to be like this. I can see why a lot of people are in poverty. 

To wrap thing up, I just want to list a few pro and cons to this technique. 

Pros: employers will get more for their money, skilled people will produce quality work

Cons: Unemployment rate for younger people will increase, more poverty, more assistance from the government will be needed, no opportunity for skill training, more work for employers when someone quits, passes away, etc. 



When you say, “this technique” I suppose you mean the practice of having the government set a minimum wage.  Setting a floor to wages runs into a problem because the economy (or, more precisely, people who are in charge of setting up systems of creating and selling goods or services) sometimes require work that is so trivial or marginal that the person who does that work does not “earn” for their employer enough to cover the minimum wage. In this case, employers are forced by the minimum wage to “over-pay” their unskilled employees doing the fairly unproductive work. The employer could simply decide not to hire someone, or they could alter the job role so that the employee did “add value” at a rate matching or exceeding the minimum wage.  

Actual empirical studies of what happens when a government makes modest increases in the minimum wage suggest that the loss of jobs for unskilled workers is real, but not especially large.  For one thing, the increase in wages among the low-paid workers stimulates demand, as those workers spend their newly increased wages, and this increase in demand largely offsets the decline in employment.  Another argument is that increases in the minimum wages will force employers to increase the cost of their goods or services to cover the increases in labor costs.  This is also measured, and is real, but is of trivial significance.  The inflation in goods and services that follows a modest increase in the minimum wage in the actual world (as opposed to theoretical models), is tiny.  A comparison of the gains in human welfare from the increased wages provided to low-wage workers against the costs in terms of higher unemployment for unskilled and young workers and inflation suggests that, from a utilitarian moral perspective, modest increases in minimum wages provide far more benefits than harms, and are a net good.

You describe working at a local motel where there only eight employees, and you seem to be concerned that the motel really needs more staff, but the motel owner cannot afford to hire more, which leaves the employees overworked.  And yet, you also mention that hours are drastically reduced at certain times of year.  My own business experience is in farming, which also works a bit like the travel industry: there are times of the year when we need more workers and everyone works longer hours (holiday weekends, summer vacation, or times when the General Assembly is in session for motels in a state capital, and during harvest on a farm), and there are slack periods where fewer workers are needed, and those who are working get fewer hours (Christmas Break for motels, December through February on the farm). The economy generates some sorts of work like this where labor is seasonal, and employers would like to be able to quickly hire more persons, or lay off persons when work is slack (e.g., fireworks display operators work very long hours for a few weeks around the Fourth of July, but don't need to work much at all for the rest of the year).  I'm not sure in what way that connects to the minimum wage, however. 


I am not clear on how you are relating this observation about working hours to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage was lower, perhaps the motel would hire hire more staff, and that would reduce the work burden on all staff, but the newly hired workers would be paid less (since the minimum wage would be reduced). It may be a good thing that people are able to work for $6 or $7 per hour, since having a job is better than no job, and the work burden on everyone is lighter with more employees, but it may be a bad thing if workers can be hired for $6 or $7 per hour, if “living wages” are about twice that, and with a higher minimum wage workers would earn $8.5 or $9 per hour instead of $6 or $7.  

Monday, March 23, 2009

Minimum Wage Policy

This suggestion at the change.gov website inspired a student reaction:

Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full-time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing -- things so many people take for granted.
Here is the student's reaction:

I believe that raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea and way overdue. I agree that people working full-time should not have to live in poverty. The current minimum wage is way below the poverty line. In an article in (wps.ablongman.com) the poverty line for a family of four in 2001 was $18,267 a year. Which is $8.75 an hour if working full time? I believe that people want more than just enough to get by on. The American Dream is more than “just enough.” If an individual works in a full time position and still can not afford their basic needs, it leads to hopelessness. In my opinion, individuals who feel hopeless are more likely to give up, live off of the in-kind benefits, resort to illegal activities, or give in to the escape of alcohol and drugs, all of which contribute to poverty.

I hope that the minimum wage will indeed be indexed to inflation, and not just be raised to the $9.50 an hour amount and then forgotten for several years or shelved by the next administration.

This reminds me of a couple passages from "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (1776). I'll quote them here. First, this:
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of...

And secondly, and most significantly, there was this:
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common laborers must every where earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labor of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one-half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest laborers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labor of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest laborer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labor of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labor, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.
So, what does it cost to maintain oneself and also bring up a child? In our city in 2009 you would need at least $500 per month for the smallest apartment with utilities. I believe an adult and child could eat well enough on a budget of $200 per month. If we're merely talking about survival, food and shelter are all they would need, but I suppose a bike, enough money for some bus passes and an occasional taxi ride, some money for clothing, and that sort of thing would perhaps create a need for another $200 or so. So, something just under $1,000 per month would be enough for survival. In a typical month a person might work 160 hours. To earn $1,000 per month working full time, they would need to be earning $6.25. In fact, the federal minimum wage is $6.55, but will go up to $7.25 in July. Here in Illinois the state minimum wage went up to $7.75 in July of 2008, and it will go up to $8.00 in July of 2009.

So, it looks to me as if we have minimum wages that are at the level that Cantillon and Smith thought were "natural" and "necessary" for workers.

If you think we ought to be more generous, and mandate a minimum wage that allows a single income-earner to raise a household with one adult and three children out of poverty, then you must consider the 2009 poverty threshold for a family of three (which is $18,310), and divide by a reasonable number of hours to expect a person to work in a year of full-time labor (a reasonable 1,850 hours would require a minimum wage of $9.90, and a more toil-and-work-diligently American full-time standard of 2,000 hours per year would require a wage of $9.16).

Are there any studies that indicate that people lose jobs when we set a minimum wage? That is a standard argument against minimum wages. Well, there are some studies that show the opposite influences (raising minimum wages increases employment). Here is a list of ten articles that, judging by the abstracts and other information I could gather, seem to have evidence about minimum wages:

The Effect of Minimum Wage on Youth Employment and Unemployment in Taiwan
Author: Chuang, Yih-chyi
Source: Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics v47, n2 (December 2006): 155-67

Minimum Wages and Poverty with Income-Sharing
Author: Fields, Gary S.; Kanbur, Ravi
Source: Journal of Economic Inequality v5, n2 (August 2007): 135-47

On the Empirics of Minimum Wages and Employment: Evidence for the Austrian Industry
Author: Ragacs, Christian
Source: Applied Economics Letters v15, n1-3 (January-February 2008): 61-64

Do Minimum Wages Have a Negative Impact on Employment in the United States?
Author: Bazen, Stephen
Source: Economie Publique n17 (2005): 41-58

Minimum Wages and Employment
Author: Neumark, David; Wascher, William L.
Source: Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics v3, n1-2 (2007): 1-186

Minimum Wage Effects on Labor Market Outcomes under Search, Matching, and Endogenous Contact Rates
Author: Flinn, Christopher J.
Source: Econometrica v74, n4 (July 2006): 1013-62

Minimum Wages, Inequality and Unemployment
Author: Adam, Antonis; Moutos, Thomas
Source: Economics Letters v92, n2 (August 2006): 170-76

The Minimum Wage Can Harm Workers by Reducing Unemployment
Author: Lee, Dwight R.
Source: Journal of Labor Research v25, n4 (Fall 2004): 657-66

Minimum Wage Policy and Employment Effects: Evidence from Brazil
Author: Lemos, Sara
Source: Economia: Journal of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association v5, n1 (Fall 2004): 219-52

Minimum Wage Impacts on Youth Employment Transitions, 1993-1999
Author: Campolieti, Michele; Fang, Tony; Gunderson, Morley
Source: Canadian Journal of Economics v38, n1 (February 2005): 81-104