Minimum wage laws by states

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've never entirely understood why our minimum wage is the highest in the nation.  It could explain why we are solely lacking blue-collar labour jobs and why we have such high levels of unemployment for an educated, skilled population.

Minimum wage in the bay area (excluding San Francisco) is $6.75 an hour which is a total joke compared to the cost of living, and yet we have plenty of unemployed too. There goes that argument.

Not an argument so much as a hypothesis.  I don't know much about macroeconomics.

Besides, even most blue-collar jobs like those at Boeing pay more than $6.75/hour.  However, I do not see why what you said refutes my hypothesis.  My hypothesis was that this creates a solely white-collar economy where blue-collar businesses are afraid to operate due to high minimum wage levels.  Now again, I'm not sure what labour jobs of that sort pay.

However, what you said only suggests the (probably incorrect) hypothesis to be correct -- the Bay Area has a high minimum wage, is primarily white-collar, and has high unemployment.  Cost of living isn't probably going to be put into the equation by companies.  If a place has a high cost of living and a low minimum wage, versus the opposite, they would go to the place with the low minimum wage.  Cost of living wouldn't affect the business all that much, would it?

$6.75 in the bay area is a "high" minimum wage? Dude, lay off the crack. If you work 40 hours a week you can get a studio apartment, but forget about luxaries like food or clothing.

[Alcon]

$6.75 in the bay area is a "high" minimum wage? Dude, lay off the crack. If you work 40 hours a week you can get a studio apartment, but forget about luxaries like food or clothing.

Read my post again.  That was my entire point.

Unemployment results from companies not wanting to start business there.  To them, $6.75 is a high minimum wage, because it's irrelevant to their business how much cost of living is relative to the wage.  They aren't paying costs of living.

[opebo]

They aren't paying costs of living.

They are if they want their workers to keep showing up.  If they aren't paid the cost of living they will die after a little while, and you will have to find new workers.  Admittedly, this is not really a problem for the owner, but the general rule in a capitalist system is that wages normally equal the barest minimum a person can survive upon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

$6.75 in the bay area is a "high" minimum wage? Dude, lay off the crack. If you work 40 hours a week you can get a studio apartment, but forget about luxaries like food or clothing.

Read my post again.  That was my entire point.

Unemployment results from companies not wanting to start business there.  To them, $6.75 is a high minimum wage, because it's irrelevant to their business how much cost of living is relative to the wage.  They aren't paying costs of living.

The fact that you consider the $6.75 minimum wage in effect for the bay area (except San Francisco) to be high when the national minimum wage was over $9 an hour in today's dollar proves that you are an anti-worker extremist. A year ago 86% of Americans said that they would support raising the national minimum wage to $6.45 an hour (pretty damn close to $6.75 an hour in today's dollars). You don't even think that is reasonable in the bay area, you working poor hater. You are no better than the robber barons of the 1890s.

[Gabu]

The fact that you consider the $6.75 minimum wage in effect for the bay area (except San Francisco) to be high when the national minimum wage was over $9 an hour in today's dollar proves that you are an anti-worker extremist. A year ago 86% of Americans said that they would support raising the national minimum wage to $6.45 an hour (pretty damn close to $6.75 an hour in today's dollars). You don't even think that is reasonable in the bay area, you working poor hater. You are no better than the robber barons of the 1890s.

He said that businesses consider it to be high.

[Alcon]

$6.75 in the bay area is a "high" minimum wage? Dude, lay off the crack. If you work 40 hours a week you can get a studio apartment, but forget about luxaries like food or clothing.

Read my post again.  That was my entire point.

Unemployment results from companies not wanting to start business there.  To them, $6.75 is a high minimum wage, because it's irrelevant to their business how much cost of living is relative to the wage.  They aren't paying costs of living.

The fact that you consider the $6.75 minimum wage in effect for the bay area (except San Francisco) to be high when the national minimum wage was over $9 an hour in today's dollar proves that you are an anti-worker extremist. A year ago 86% of Americans said that they would support raising the national minimum wage to $6.45 an hour (pretty damn close to $6.75 an hour in today's dollars). You don't even think that is reasonable in the bay area, you working poor hater. You are no better than the robber barons of the 1890s.

You really aren't reading what I'm saying.  When businesses look at where they want to go, they look for the area where it is least expensive to operate because that is how they make the most money.  It is irrelevant to them (the companies) how high or low the cost of living is for the most part, and it is totally irrelevant to them how much minimum wage was years ago in today's money.  I don't expect an apology for mis-interpreting my post because you are too much on your high horse to ever apologise to anyone, but at least take the time to avoid such glaring misinterpretations of what people say.

They aren't paying costs of living.

They are if they want their workers to keep showing up.  If they aren't paid the cost of living they will die after a little while, and you will have to find new workers.  Admittedly, this is not really a problem for the owner, but the general rule in a capitalist system is that wages normally equal the barest minimum a person can survive upon.

They will die after a little while?  Maybe in a country with no welfare system.

The latter comment may be true in Thailand, but in the United States, the vast majority of people make more than they need to survive.  They spend it foolishly in many cases, but it is hardly the rule du jour.

[ag]

The original observation might, actually, be saying something very different. A plausible explanation could be that the states w/ lower minimal wage have lower nominal living costs to begin with (for instance, because a lot of them are, in general, poorer). You'd have to control by, say, the state's median wage to get a meaningful result.

As for the the policy itself, the jury is still somewhat mixed. The simple argument is, of course, that in general the minimal wage is, indeed, bad for employment, but there are exceptions. There have been studies that have reasonably shown that sometimes the impact might be small, or even might go in the other direction, i.e. increase employment slightly (in particular, when a single large employer for the minimal-wage-earning population in an area, who can, therefore, exercise a monopsony power). There is a reasonable empirical confirmation that this does indeed sometimes happen. On the whole, the minimal wage is so low in the US, that, especially if there is an exception for kids of college age and below, the impact of a small raise in minimal wage is mostly negligible, anyway.

[jerusalemcar5]

Pretty much the only people who make minimum wage anywhere nowadays are teenagers working at burger joints and people employed at small businesses who are trying to keep overhead low.

Does that describe you?

50% of all workers at the $5.15 per hour or below level are over the age of 24 and 75% are over 19.  Therefore teenagers make up a mere 25% of the minimum wage/below category.

So you're saying all those others are small business? I don't think so.  $5.15 per hr.  is ridiculous.  People can barely afford to live off that.