Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Living wage: effects upon the economy ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:49 PM
Original message
Living wage: effects upon the economy ?
Here I go with another question that hopefully will help others. Not being an economist, I don't know what the effects of a widespread "living wage" would be upon the economy. My guess is that prices of goods and services would have to go up, but that's only my guess. Anyone want to take a crack at this ? TIA for your time :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. The living wage debate is really silly in my opinion.
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 06:27 PM by Flabbergasted
For one thing you the term "living wage" is very ambiguous, and refers more to the amount of discomfort people expect to receive from a given culture's perspective. For example a living wage in Vietnam (in other words what one expects) would be very different in the US. US citizens expect phone access, a bus line, etc etc. Chinese people are willing to and happily live without some luxuries we take for granted!

The debate needs to be waged on a "restructuring of the entire economic system" level. When you have corporations paying their share in taxes and some effective social programs, we can discuss this. Otherwise you are just going to put every mom and popper out of business. Is that what we want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. It is important.
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 06:03 PM by Neil Lisst
You wouldn't so readily dismiss it.

We're talking about a living wage in the US, and it is whatever people think of it as being. It's an important topic, and quibbling over terms that have meaning in the lexicon is silly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I still think it is important for americans to realize that we should be
thankful for some of the luxuries we have instead of just demanding more. I have no problem with raising min wage with an appropriate policy shift in all areas of our economy.

But I'm telling you, if you just decided to raise minimum wage you would have alot less cafes to eat at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. no, we wouldn't, because demand would not lessen
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 06:13 PM by Neil Lisst
cost might go up, but people have to eat lunch, and whether it's burgers, or pizza, or chicken, they all have to pay their workers.

Price goes up, consumers pay it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Who is more able to absorbe this increased cost a small cafe
or a McDonalds franchise. In this case I'm talking about reality. If the cafe has to now charge $12 it would make many people decide to spend $4 at Mcdonalds. It also effects the supply chain.

All I'm saying is we are taking the idea out of context. A "living wage" requires complete economic reorganization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Have you read Fast Food Nation?
Raising the wages of all workers 1 dollar brings about 3 cents more cost added to the food, according to a study cited in that book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Which is exactly my point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. a living wage always has to be defined in local terms...
...to fit a local economy. One such definition might be that minimum monthly take-home wages must be at least four times the monthly rental cost of average three bedroom housing, i.e. so that housing costs need not exceed 25 percent of wages. That might be several thousand dollars in a metropolitan area like San Francisco, and considerably less in rural areas elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wouldn't it be advisable to determine how much a living
wage is per hour, week, or month? Although to some extent, I think a wage that a family would require depends on the area they're living in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am ignorant of any case where prices rose due to a living wage.
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 05:59 PM by brainshrub
Unhealthy Inflation is due five factors:

1) Scarcity of an important resource.
2) Govt prints to much money.
3) War.
4) Natural disaster.
5) Monopoly

The fears of hyper-inflation are what corporate apologists scream about, but ultimately a living wage increases economic activity and social stability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. True except that ultimately we'd need a new economic paradigm
or it would kill off all the small business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Like maybe a Wal-mart model?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. Easy solution:
Any business that employees less than 100 people would only need to pay a minimum wage, but not a living wage.

This would encourage new businesses and not run small families out.

I am simply not convinced that a living wage would hurt most businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. The last minimum wage hike didn't hurt businesses
There was actually a net increase in employment.

I agree with your idea that small businesses can pay less, but I don't know if corporate-controlled legislators would by that -- probably would call it "discrimination"

How about a universal healthcare system so employers aren't burdened by that cost anymore and then wage increases?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. a living wage would be higher than what many now have, and that
and that would be inflationary, and things would go up in price.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. Henry Ford gave enough for workers to buy cars (Fords of course)--but
it was considered a living expendable wage--the middle class came into being. And people were able to buy goods and live comfortable-not wealthy--but a 'living' wage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. rodeodance, have you read Joan Didion's last book?
There was a chapter in it that argues the defense industry created the middle class (I hope I don't misrepresent this out of stupidity). Once the contracts dry up and the plant closes down, so does the middle class in that community. It was pretty scary -- especially if you grew up in Silicon Valley which was powered by Lockheed before those kids started tinkering with machines in that garage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. You are talking about manufacturing.....which we do comparatively little
of now.....however a government sanctioned raise in minimum wage to a "living wage" is drastically different and needs to be viewed holistically
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. There is only one study I know of...
that actually tracked the effect of artificially raising wages. Unfortunately, I can't find anything about it, but maybe 10 years ago in Philadelphia the minimum was raised and there was no adverse effect.

Truth is, everything anyone writes about raising wages is based on theory and bullshit-- you can't have controlled studies in economics, so most results and "studies" are slants taken from whatever numbers are available, usually from the BLS.

There is no doubt that any increase in wages, from whatever source, is somewhat inflationary-- people have more to spend and prices could go up. But, simply raising the cost of labor itself is not by itself inflationary, and doesn't necessarily affect the price of goods. Pricing is subject to market forces, and labor is just one of many costs that businesses have to deal with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. This is highly unsatisfactory. I'd like to know the amount the min wage
was raised, the time frame of the study, if the raise was a "living wage" etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. You should check out Boortz.com. You'd probably find everything you need
there to justify your stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. Unsatisfactory to me, too, but..
I'm working on a vague memory from years ago.

I only remember it at all because whatever I was reading at the time made a lot of sense. Something about burger joints and such being forced to increase wages by a couple of bucks an hour, poossibly because they couldn't find kids to work at minimum, and it had no ill effects.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. BTW Steve thanks for wording that in this way....
"....question that hopefully will help others.".....I like that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. thank you ! I'm trying not to be too selfish here nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Fed is more likely to head the other way
There was a really scary article a couple of days ago at
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=acqbH7wK9LK8&refer=us
A new Federal Reserve study has shaken economists' forecasts by suggesting the U.S. economy will have to decelerate much more over the next decade than most now expect.

The study, to be published in July, finds that the retirement of the Baby Boom generation will force far-reaching adjustments in the way the economy works. Forecasts for everything from growth and employment to corporate profits and interest rates will have to be recast.

The Fed's report "is such a revolutionary shot," said Ian Morris, chief U.S. economist at HSBC Securities USA Inc. in New York. "Something like this is going to take time to digest."

The study projects a slower pace of workforce growth than most economists now forecast, suggesting the economy can't keep growing at the present-day pace without generating pressure for higher wages and inflation. To prevent that, the Fed will have to enforce a lower speed limit on the economy by pushing up interest rates.


If I'm reading that correctly, what they're saying is that as the baby boomers retire, the workforce will shrink to the point where it could actually push up wages unless the Fed deliberately shrinks the rate of economic growth to match.

In other words, if the Fed has its way, ain't never gonna be no more good times ever. We're doomed to live in our current state of marginality and insecurity from now until the end of eternity, because that's what keeps business happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Every time they increase the min wage some always starts crying
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 08:20 PM by augie38
"the sky is falling...the sky is falling." They can raise the min wage to $14hr(and they should) and it will only affect prices slightly at the Mall. Small businesses will, maybe, have to let one or two employees go, but those let go will, eventually, find $14hr jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. I don't think it would work unless we had corps. paying their share
Socialist economic policy needs to be views holistically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. It'll work. We just don't have the guts to go up
against big businses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. No. They only have to go up if corporate pigs take 500x a living wage
which is what they've been doing for some time now.

The fact that people aren't making a living wage anymore serves 2 purposes, not just one: the obvious one, that CEOs and their evil ilk can suck up the slack into their own salary; and a less-realized one, which is that it keeps the 'rabble' down.

Getting money is satisfying only to a certain extent. Eventually the gathering of money in and of itself loses its rush, because more money doesn't keep putting more distance between you and the general public. You're a millionaire? You have a lot of economic distance between you and the average person. But the more you get doesn't mean that you still keep increasing that economic distance-eventually, adding on even millions won't push you that much farther ahead of the average person. The way you keep that rush going in that case is to make things worse for the average person, by holding down wages to where they can barely get by, overcharging on necessary items so that people have to use an increasing portion of their income to get by, etc. The people that are now in charge who think this way will only be happy when we a truly slaves, and they have ultimate control over all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. Gee that would mean that
the CEO making 500 times more than a worker, would only be making 499.99 times more! Terrible, just terrible! Rampart socialism!
In Japan and Europe it averages around 30 times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
26. Effect on Prices, Minimal; Effect on Workers' Ability to Pay Bills--Great
The effect that the implementation of a living wage, (or raising of the minimum wage), has on prices of goods and services is minimal because--surprise, surprise--the wages paid to employees is a minute portion of the total expense of a corporation or other entity. Many studies have been done showing almost no cost increase at all, and even cost-savings, as they now experienced reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, increased productivity, etc. The Economic Policy Institute has studied this from many angles, and produced some really good study results: "The Economic Impact of Local Living Wages" www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp170 and "Higher Wages Lead to More Efficient Service Provision" www.epinet.org/content.cfm/ issueguides_livingwage_alexlivwg . It is interesting that this thing always gets tied to the small-business-can't-afford-it routine, because the fact is that smaller organizations tend to pay better and have better working conditions, more real advancement, etc., and as we all know, the huge, global/multinational corporations are the worst cheapskates, cheating people out of every dime the corporation's legal department can manipulate. The ones behind the endless attempts to depress wages are always the biggest multinational corporations, who can most afford to pay well. Their first allegiance is to their stockholders, consulting firms, etc., not to their employees, who are just like machine parts--replaceable.

A corollary to all this is the experience of supermarkets and others, during the Reagan '80s, when that bastard Reagan killed the contracts of the UFCW union (and others), who had negotiated a decent wage level for cashiers, etc., that was above minimum wage, and was actually a good living (I remember it as about $13-13.50 an hour, a livable wage at that time). Reagan busted it all back to the horrific minimum wage level of that time, (as I recall) about $3.75-4.00 an hour or so. This completely destroyed the job of cashier as a decent way to make a living, and killed the possibility of a normal middle class person being able to live on one single job--ever. You might expect that, after the complete collapse of the entire pay structure for all employees in large stores, that the price of groceries plummeted, and we all experienced a new golden age, as they passed on huge savings to us all. Of course, they did nothing of the sort; they did what they always do, and what the problem actually is--they price-gouged and stole the now-even-more-inflated profits. Wages are not the reason for high prices; all you have to do is notice what happens when a corporation outsources all its work to slave labor in a Third World country--does the price drop? Of course not; their profits increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
31. If there were a living wage payed to all.
More people would have the money to become customers of small businesses. I believe small businesses would do better by increasing their customer base and do more volume of business. Lots of low wage earners are don't have any spending money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. With executives' salaries and bennies HUNDREDS of times higher...
They can surely cut down a bit, themselves?

In 1980, exec pay was ~40x that of the average worker.

These days, and depending on the source, it's anywhere between 400x and 600x that the average worker.

If i bothered, I could find some stats documenting the decline of average worker pay as well - and there was no 8 year reprieve between 1992 and 2000 either.

Depends on the graph, its data, and what the graph is supposed to say. Hell, I could whip up a graph showing why the economy is doing good... and it won't crash, because other countries are picking up the slack being made in America by our job losses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yollam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
33. Prices might rise somewhat, but the economy would boom.
Jesus, can you imagine all those millions of people would now have a little money not just for subsistence food and a crappy roof over their heads, but they might actually have enough to see a movie or buy something?

As a matter of fact, I personally believe that the increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits lower-income families with kids, probably did more to sustain the Clinton boom and soften the Bush recession than the numerous tax cuts for the rich. Give a bunch of rich people some money and watch them hoard it away. Give it to the poor and watch them spend it ( at stores and companies owned by the rich - so everybody wins).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC