-
yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
(snip)"Examining the effect of living wage ordinances, the authors found that the ordinances decreased cash transfer assistance. Specifically, the authors found that the enactment of a living wage ordinance decreased assistance by $34 per month. In addition, the authors found that the increase in earnings resulting from the ordinance was only $16 per month. This means that for every dollar in increased earnings from a living wage ordinance, families can expect to lose up to $2.12 in cash assistance—greatly limiting the ability of the policy to help low-income families. Controlling for factors such as the business cycle, state minimum wage levels, and welfare reform, the authors found that the enactment of a living wage increased total family income by only $55 per month. Due to lost benefits, 38 percent of this increase in income is crowded out. If the effect of important programs like food stamps is factored in, this tax rate would likely be higher.
Overall, the authors have found that living wage ordinances do little to actually increase the standard of living for low-income families. The $55-a-month increase in total family earnings represents a less than 2 percent increase for the average family. In terms of an increase in earnings, the $16-per-month increase represents an increase of approximately one-half of one percent. The authors state, “a reasonable reading of our results is that the living wage has a limited capability in improving the economic status of the poor.” This limited capability is important because decades of studies clearly show that mandated wage floors create disemployment effects—particularly for the low-skilled employees these laws are intended to help. Pushing the intended beneficiaries out of a job while providing minimal benefits to remaining employees makes living wage ordinances an ineffective anti-poverty policy."
Putting together all of the pieces, it would appear that passing an $8.50 per hour 'living wage' law causes the following ...
- some businesses can't turn a profit when forced to pay $8.50 per hour for work which actually has less value, thus some businesses close or move away
- people who previously worked for those businesses are now out of a job and totally dependent on social welfare benefits
- local tax rates eventually must increase to pay for those increased social welfare benefits, thus 'extracting' extra money from the pocket of every taxpaying resident
- remaining businesses are forced to raise prices to cover their higher hourly labor costs, thus 'extracting' additional money from the pocket of every local customer
- workers who receive the 'pay raise' to $8.50 per hour find themselves losing eligibility for some social welfare benefits
- workers who receive the 'pay raise' to $8.50 per hour find themselves paying more taxes
conclusions appear to be that a significant percentage of low income people supposedly helped by a 'living wage' law wind up unemployed instead. Low income people who still have jobs do get a 'paper' pay raise, but between lost eligibility for social welfare benefits and increased taxes they actually see a very minimal increase in terms of overall standard of living. Higher income local residents then see both increased taxes to fund additional people on the social welfare rolls plus making up for lost tax revenue from those businesses which went bankrupt or relocated, and they also must pay higher prices in local stores to fund their higher hourly labor rate mandated by the 'living wage' law.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
So Melonie! I'm dying to know if you're a liberal or conservative. Who'd you vote for, John Kerry or Dubya? http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...4/8/0/poke.gif
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
neither, actually. I'm primarily a libertarian. Libertarian philosophy basically boils down to 'don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do (or not to do)' , plus 'do whatever you want to do, as long as it harms nobody else and you don't expect to force me to help pay for it'.
I'm no huge fan of GWB, mostly because he tends to spend tax money too freely and he tends to be too trusting and idealistic in this world full of snakes and backstabbers. But compared to John Kerry, GWB was clearly the 'lesser of two evils'.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Most of my philosphies are in-line with the conservatives.
Dubya does deviate from the Republican party in that there's too much spending going on.
But when it comes to the porn industry, I'm on the side of the liberals. http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...bananalama.gif
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
sounds like you have libertarian leanings, two-timer !
"Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissionable -- economic and social. The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's." -- The Ron Paul Freedom Principles
Back on topic, the 'living wage' idea would appear to be the ultimate in gov't wealth redistribution schemes. It takes more money out of the pockets of regular citizens (some by taxes, some by stealth i.e. higher prices), but it doesn't actually redistribute much of that extracted money to those low wage earners it was ostensibly created to help. Instead it creates a higher tax burden for both regular citizens and low wage earners, it bankrupts a few businesses, thus it creates more unemployed poor collecting social welfare benefits. The only apparent benefits from the 'living wage' idea are liberal publicity (providing that the actual economic details are not brought forth, only the 'lofty principle' which doesn't actually work), and extra gov't jobs created to administer 'living wage' enforcement and more welfare recipients.
~
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-timer
Of course a lot of femnists, who are 100% democratic are opposed to porn and strip clubs too, as degrading to women. That's probably the only thing Gloria Steinam and Jerry Falwell agree on.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Issues I agree to:
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults
End government barriers to international free trade
Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security
Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more
Issues I checked MAYBE to:
Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft
There should be no National ID card
Replace government welfare with private charity
Issues I disagree to:
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs
End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business
My score is a hair to the right, but according to the test, I am a libertarian.
Where do libertarians fall on the issue of abortion? I'm pro-life.
On the death penalty, I am 95% against the death penalty.
What other issues are there? http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...ink_573113.gif
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
OK, I guess by definition, I am a libertarian. http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f.../surrender.gif
But even so, when voting local, state, and national elections, without hesitation, I vote Republican, and hope they don't screw things up.
The previous governor of Illinois, George Ryan (Republican), turned out to be a buffoon, and completely destroyed what the previous governors (Republicans) did. I anticipate that George Ryan will be indicted in the future in a license for bribe scandal that occurred while he was in office. I'm wondering why they're taking so long, though.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are having a blast in my (blue) state. http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f.../8/0/angry.gif
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
But even so, when voting local, state, and national elections, without hesitation, I vote Republican, and hope they don't screw things up.
As I posted earlier, voting now boils down to a 'least of the evils' situation - i.e. not entirely agreeing with the policies of any major party candidate, but rather choosing those who are likely to do the least damage. This is actually a very sad state of affairs, however one must recognize the political realities of campaign finance and the attention span of your average voter making election of a third party candidate a virtual impossibility today.
Quote:
The previous governor of Illinois, George Ryan (Republican), turned out to be a buffoon, and completely destroyed what the previous governors (Republicans) did.
Every political party has its 'embarrassing uncles'. The only difference usually is how much media coverage of their embarrassing antics is reported on the front page versus buried/not reported.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Melonie
You're a stripper AND a libertarian? That is so hot. :D
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
One of the biggest promoters of the, "living wage" is unions. Since their own high wages makes thier employers less compettiive, they try to, "level the playing field" by forcing up everyone else's cost of doing business. The end resullt is to chase business away.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
I vote for whatever works the best - or whatever screws up things the least. Sometimes that'll be a more conservative approach, sometimes a more liberal.
I hope I don't ruffle too many feathers, but I see libertarianism as equidistant, but opposite, from the middle of the political spectrum as communism. That is, they both have great ideals, and they sure sound like something you can nod your head at, but they're really not workable, as prevailing philosophies, in normal human and societal dynamics.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
they're really not workable, as prevailing philosophies, in normal human and societal dynamics
How about some examples? http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...4/8/0/poke.gif
With regard to communism, China has done an outstanding job. They allow capitalist elements (business) to bring in revenue, but they've learned to control their people and freedom. For China, communism works.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-timer
How about some examples?
http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...4/8/0/poke.gif
With regard to communism, China has done an outstanding job. They allow capitalist elements (business) to bring in revenue, but they've learned to control their people and freedom. For China, communism works.
I suppose the millions of new-born girls murdered each year in keeping with their strict "one-child" policy is just a minor inconvenience?
What about the cultural revolution? How many millions died during that wonderful experiment in social reformation? Forget Hitler, the leading figures of communism, Mao and Stalin, top the list of history's worst mass-murderers.
As far as China allowing capitalist elements. So far, they have been able to control the "Genie" of economic freedom to their advantage. I predict that they will not be able to control this Genie forever and that eventually the Chinese people will demand greater political freedoms to go along with their increased ecnomic ones. Whether the communists in power will allow such reforms will determine China's future in this century.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
The point of this 'study' seems to be that Living Wage Ordinances have resulted in people earning more money, but receiving less in government assistance.
And this is supposed to be bad in what way?
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
The point of this 'study' seems to be that Living Wage Ordinances have resulted in people earning more money, but receiving less in government assistance.
And this is supposed to be bad in what way?
Because of the following,
1. many low income people who formerly had 'minimum wage' jobs prior to passage of a Living Wage Ordinace are now unemployed as a result of their former employer going bankrupt or relocating to avoid higher labor costs.
2. low income people who find themselves unemployed as a result of living wage ordinances wind up collecting more in social services benefits
3. of those low income people who do still have jobs, even though their gross paycheck may have increased by $2 per hour their net paycheck increases by much less as a result of higher SSI and income taxes
4. of those low income people who do still have jobs, the higher gross income can cause loss of eligibility for some social services benefits
5. ALL residents of the jurisdiction which enacted the living wage ordinance must pay higher prices for goods and services as a result of businesses passing on the cost of the $2 per hour increase in wage rates to unskilled employees
6. ALL property owners in the jurisdiction which enacted the living wage ordinance must pay higher property taxes to fund the local share of increased social welfare benefit costs created by the newly unemployed recipients (which vastly outweighs the social welfare benefit cost reductions caused by the $2 per hour increase in wage rates for unskilled employees who still have a job)
conclusions are
A. living wage ordinances enact a stealthy 'transfer of wealth' scheme via increased retail prices on all residents and by increased property taxes on property owners
B. a significant portion of the 'transferred wealth' winds up in the coffers of the IRS and SSI and not in the hands of the unskilled laborers it was intended to help
C. total social welfare costs which are primarily borne by local taxpayers experiences a net increase
D. the only 'job growth' are additional civil service employees needed to administer the Living Wage program and the new social welfare beneficiaries.
E. the cost effectiveness of SOME people earning more money, but receiving less in government assistance, is massively out of proportion compared to the total extra costs levied on local consumers, taxpayers and property owners
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-timer
How about some examples?
Marxist communism, not Leninist or Stalinist or Maoist communism, assumes that common people will work in common for the common good. They don't. Self-advancement is a natural and powerful motivator. Libertarianism assumes that extreme self-advancement will motivate people properly without them needing regulation. But it doesn't, and they do.
I replied as a courtesy to the question, and it was a mistake for me to post on it at all. I don't really care to discuss communism and libertarianism, particularly when they're off-topic for the thread. They're just my views, right or wrong, and I don't claim to know everything that is right for the world.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Because of the following,
1. many low income people who formerly had 'minimum wage' jobs prior to passage of a Living Wage Ordinace are now unemployed as a result of their former employer going bankrupt or relocating to avoid higher labor costs.
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT totally unsupported by any data in this study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
2. low income people who find themselves unemployed as a result of living wage ordinances wind up collecting more in social services benefits
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT totally unsupported by any data in this study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
3. of those low income people who do still have jobs, even though their gross paycheck may have increased by $2 per hour their net paycheck increases by much less as a result of higher SSI and income taxes
4. of those low income people who do still have jobs, the higher gross income can cause loss of eligibility for some social services benefits
Nice job of either totally missing the point, or purposely ignoring it.
OF COURSE, people who get paid more, receive less in government assistance and pay more in taxes.... the question is, what is wrong with that:?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
5. ALL residents of the jurisdiction which enacted the living wage ordinance must pay higher prices for goods and services as a result of businesses passing on the cost of the $2 per hour increase in wage rates to unskilled employees
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT totally unsupported by any data in this study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
6. ALL property owners in the jurisdiction which enacted the living wage ordinance must pay higher property taxes to fund the local share of increased social welfare benefit costs created by the newly unemployed recipients (which vastly outweighs the social welfare benefit cost reductions caused by the $2 per hour increase in wage rates for unskilled employees who still have a job)
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT totally unsupported by any data in this study.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
in response to absolute bullshit, you appear to have speed read the article ...
"Quantifying the ordinances’ benefits is critical because increasing the wage floor leads to disemployment as businesses either decrease their labor force, shift to more efficient employees, or leave the jurisdiction entirely. It would take a significant benefit to justify this cost."
With the study stating in black and white that increased unemployment occurs for the reasons stated in the quote, I hope you're not contending that newly unemployed persons with little or no job skills are NOT going to file to collect social welfare benefits. I also hope that you're not contending that local taxpayers will not wind up having to pay for those increased social welfare benefit costs via higher taxes in one form or another. I also hope that you're not contending that local employers are content to keep prices the same while paying an extra $2 an hour to their employees out of the goodness of their hearts.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-timer
With regard to communism, China has done an outstanding job. They allow capitalist elements (business) to bring in revenue, but they've learned to control their people and freedom. For China, communism works.
If people have never tasted freedom, or not even are think about what difference it might make, it would be relatively easy to continue depriving them of it. Heck, most of the former USSR republics don't know what it is like, even if some of the republics now "have it."
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
You can greatly control a lot of people by craftily controlling their wages.
If jobs were as easy to find as a used car or a washing machine, or a car full of groceries, _where you can shop around as you like_ then maybe minimum wage regulation would not be necessary. But if you keep wages low enough people will not have the resources to shop around for a better job.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
The site that Melonie led me to shows the extremes to be communism, conservatism, libertarianism, and liberalism. The center is centrist.
Personally, I don't see a single country employing the extreme positions, they are all somewhere in the middle. The http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f.../4/8/0/usa.gif is the most capitalist, but they have socialist programs that prevents them from going to the extreme right. China is the most communist, but as I said, they have capitalist elements, which pulls them from the communist extreme (left).
I agree somewhat to Jay Zeno's phrase they're really not workable - if you're talking about any position that is at the extremes. In order for a society, organization, or nation, to be successful, they have to employ the best of what the extremes have to offer. http://www.stripperweb.com/gallery/f...4/8/0/deal.gif
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
There is no data in the study that supports any of those bullshit assertions.
^To understand that sentence, you have to understand the distinction between data and an assertion, and quoting another assertion in support of the first assertion demonstrates that that understanding is not present.
-
Re: yet another study on the real results of 'Living Wage' laws
dlabtot, I'm going to agree with you that I cannot produce actual data to support my assertions in regard to the overall economic impact of 'Living Wage' ordinances. The reasons for this is that cities who have actually enacted such ordinances make conscious attempts to prevent the easy correlation of the 'Living Wage' taking effect vs. social welfare benefit costs rising vs local budget deficits vs property tax increases. On the other hand, local governments cannot obscure the fact that local businesses have gone belly-up or relocated elsewhere to escape the Living Wage mandate, which makes that sort of data much more accessable to researchers.