Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[Bham1982]

In the US...

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

77% are white [[Pew),

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?

Minimum wage earners aren't "wealthy white kids". I have no idea where you get that idea from the above stats. Kids in wealthy families don't generally work, obviously. They're focused on school and activities. Very few kids in places like Bloomfield-Birmingham are working.

And minimum wage laws almost always distinguish between working adults and children, so it's irrelevant. The drive for higher minimums is for working adults only.

Minimum wage earners are most concentrated in rural areas, BTW, which happen to be mostly white.

B'Ham, what's the magic number? OK, not $100. Is $15.00 indexed to inflation enough to prevent the slide into 'servitude'?

I think it's a reasonable number for higher cost states. There is no "magic number", obviously, but a general consensus has emerged around that range.

[Wesley Mouch]

Minimum wage earners aren't "wealthy white kids". I have no idea where you get that idea from the above stats. Kids in wealthy families don't generally work, obviously. They're focused on school and activities. Very few kids in places like Bloomfield-Birmingham are working.

1 in 8 MW workers live in a household with > $100,000 income [[NYTimes 2014):

One in eight lives in a high-income household. About 12 percent of those who would gain from an increase to $10.10 live in households with incomes above $100,000. This group highlights the fact that the minimum wage is not nearly as well targeted toward poverty reduction as the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy whose receipt, unlike the minimum wage, is predicated on family income.

And minimum wage laws almost always distinguish between working adults and children, so it's irrelevant. The drive for higher minimums is for working adults only.

I did not mean to suggest minors as much as rich, young adults. MW is a miserably blunt tool for poverty reduction -- unless you don't mind 12% of your increases going to those who don't need it.

Minimum wage earners are most concentrated in rural areas, BTW, which happen to be mostly white.

I only added white for dramatic effect. Race isn't important here. There we'd agree.

White youth was a proxy for people who don't need the MW increase. I have spent a lot of time employing MW workers. The increase will be great for some, but for a great many others it will harm them. Make it harder for youth to get their first job. Harder for those with disadvantages from getting a foothold.

But that's the point, after all. This is mostly a ploy by unions to drive wages up. And we all know union's care little for the poor -- unless playing on guilt helps them run wages up. And wages must rise if the union's percentage take is to rise.

You're new to town, and want to offer your labor to help a small business -- to make a few bucks and show your worth. Good luck with that. The labor market isn't open to you anymore. Casual labor is gone. Regulation of every moment of employment is upon us -- and with it control by bureaucrats, unions, and the advantaged. The disadvantaged mostly need us to 'get the hell out of my way', as my friend John would say.

I think it's a reasonable number for higher cost states. There is no "magic number", obviously, but a general consensus has emerged around that range.

So glad that you got it under control. I'm sure you and the Bureau of Wages can make sure the number is appropriate.

[Canadian Visitor]

MW is a miserably blunt tool for poverty reduction -- unless you don't mind 12% of your increases going to those who don't need it.

This is so completely illogical as to be indefensible as a statement.

Any business that hit 88% uptake by its target demographic would be thrilled.

Any government program that reached those who needed it 88% of time would be ecstatic.

If you only miss 12% of the time your batting average is .880

**

Let me add here, that what you are saying is, in effect, that you would agree with paying those who 'need it' a greater wage, but if you only deserve it @$@# you.

That again makes no sense.

But that's the point, after all. This is mostly a ploy by unions to drive wages up. And we all know union's care little for the poor -- unless playing on guilt helps them run wages up. And wages must rise if the union's percentage take is to rise.

You and I could very much disagree on this statement for which you have very little evidence, in point of fact, having presented none.

However, for one moment, let me concede the point and ask 'So????'

Why would it matter who sponsors a good idea? If it turns out pedophiles are against murder, will you seek to legalize it?

What if Democrats opposed murder? :O Now I know you will want de-regulated non-consensual violence.

Stay away from such tropes.

Evidence-based policy. Science-based policy.

Period, Full-stop.

***

To sum up, you didn't address my arguments at all, because you know you can't.

You know that the evidence the world over shows a fair minimum wage, maximum work hours, minimum age of employment, safe-workplace laws etc. raise the standard of living for everyone, and reduce poverty.

Study upon study, objective data again and again.

Stop.

Concede.