this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
253 points (95.0% liked)

Today I Learned

17465 readers
873 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Upon inception it was set at $0.25. It is now $7.25.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Do you remember that wages rose when unemployment was low?

Why is there a need for minimum wage?

Edit: downvoters, what do you want? A high minimum wage job while many are unemployed? Why focus on minimum wage when you can have low unemployment and decent wages for everybody at the same time by reducing unemployment?

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The unemployment rate does not take into consideration people who are under-employed or people who are working multiple jobs to get by. You could be working 3 part time jobs (none of which offer benefits) and still not make enough money to pay your bills. The "unemployment rate" is a load of bullshit and should largely be discarded in favor of tracking how many people are living above the poverty line.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right. This is important to remember. I think my question is still valid because it's about the real rate and not the published figure.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except that the published figure is what gets used in policy and calculations. The real rate is largely ignored and the numbers are heavily skewed by ever-changing definitions and parameters making the "unemployment rate" a nearly useless metric. We need to run our country based on keeping people out of functional poverty, not based on keeping profits up.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Policy and calculations don't matter if there is low unemployment. It's minimum wage that's gamed. Why fight that lost battle?

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm saying that the unemployment rate is artificially low as well as being a stupid metric to use, but unfortunately, it's the metric that powerful entities use to make decisions about manipulating the economy at large.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

There is the published figure and there is the actual number of unemployed people.

You rightfully point out that the figure is manipulated. I am talking about the actually unemployed people.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Federal Reserve has mandate to ensure employment doesn't get too high, which is high enough to cause inflation. By increasing interest rates, unemployment increases because it costs more to pay people.

Wages rose when unemployment was low because inflation was running away. The Fed was behind on its mandate shortly after the pandemic. Because interest rates were low, it was relatively inexpensive to hire people, and that's what businesses did, especially after firing so many of them during the pandemic. But, ya know, the pandemic gave people more time to consider what was important to them...and working was pretty low on that list. Thanks to the low interest rates, businesses could pay them more as an incentive to come back to work. That whole "Great Resignation" thing was about workers finally having some bargaining power. And wages rose because workers could demand more.

But now interest rates are having some pressure on inflation. It costs more to hire people, and it costs more to keep people hired. The bargaining power workers had is basically gone. The demand for employees to literally come back into work and stop working from home is evidence that business managers have regained the upper hand. And so, now there's no reason to pay people more. Just threaten to fire them and watch them dance.

So, basically, the need for a minimum wage is because there is no incentive to raise wages themselves but there's every incentive to lower them. And the Fed has other methods of dealing with low unemployment that will kick in before businesses start raising wages to attract workers in most cases. The post-pandemic era was "unprecedented", after all.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What would be a fair way to manage wages without the need for unemployment?

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't need unemployment as it is. Stephanie Kelton makes the case here (pdf). Here's an AI summary of how wages are managed without the need for unemployment using a public service employment (PSE) program:

The PSE program would pay a wage of $15/hr plus benefits, establishing an effective minimum wage and compensation level nationwide.

It would provide jobs to anyone ready and willing to work, eliminating involuntary unemployment. The authors estimate the program could employ around 15 million workers currently unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force.

By providing jobs at $15/hr, the program would lift wages at the bottom and reduce poverty. The wage floor would pressure private employers to raise wages to compete for workers.

The program is designed not to compete with private employers, except to establish minimum standards. In economic upswings, private employers would recruit from the program, while in downturns the program would absorb laid-off workers.

So the PSE program aims to reduce unemployment by directly providing jobs, while also lifting wages by setting an effective nationwide minimum of $15/hr plus benefits. It establishes a wage floor that would ripple up to benefit other low-wage workers.

In summary, the policy note argues the PSE program could simultaneously reduce unemployment and increase wages for low-income workers through its design and job provision at $15/hr. The wage floor and job guarantee are interlinked policy goals.

It should be insulting to Americans the country over that one of our main economic institutions has determined that people must be unemployed for economic growth. Unemployment has so many socio-economic problems it's insane, and it leads to physical and psychological problems, and even ultimately to suicide. Why would we want this, and why should it continue to be implemented, if an alternative exist that better manages wages and doesn't need call for unemployment?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This sounds reasonable. Too bad that the post lost focus. I would love to know what others think about this.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are you so against a minimum wage when people keep telling you why it’s important?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because I am not convinced by their arguments. It makes sense if you accept a minimum of unemployed people. But why should society settle for that? Employ everybody and find another way to prevent wages from rising too high.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the workers don’t currently have either- lowering or removing the minimum wage might reduce the unemployment rate, but those jobs are not going to be paid at a livable rate. Currently more theft is wage theft committed by companies against workers, they’re already using the power they have against workers. There’s already a clear divide between union and nonunion blue collar benefits and wages: if there were a textbook play of economic principles, all nonunion blue collar employees would quit and join union companies or form their own.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Having neither, it's the same as the saying about liberty and security. If you don't seek employment for all then you won't get minimum wage.

Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

Of course, without new ideas, things don't change. Not the workers but the companies need a reason for full employment.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

The people have a gun to their head. If they’re not eligible for unemployment because a $3/hour job is available, they’ll take it not to starve to death. That doesn’t make it a free or advantageous choice.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Of course, if there is only support if you don't have a job then minimum wage makes sense.

But that support comes from taxes. I would prefer a society where everybody works so that taxes are low. Of course there must still be something that gives people the freedom to say no.