Typical workers increased by about 10% in the same time and minimum wage workers decreased by 5.5%.
Something is rigged.
https://memepoliceman.com/misleading-with-inflation-since-19...
Something is rigged.
https://memepoliceman.com/misleading-with-inflation-since-19...
Is that rigged or is that just change?
Basically: you can reasonably argue that a US textile job might pay less today because of competition from abroad. You can't say that about burger flipping or fruit picking. Those jobs are payed less because we deliberately dropped (in real money terms) the legally mandated floor on the salary.
They are subject to automation. If you make service labor more expensive than robots, you'll be buying your Big Macs from robots instead of human cashiers.
There's always an excuse. Yet real wages continue to drop.
Grandparent talks about robots, but it might also be the case that many cook jobs were displaced by the decision of consumers who would've eaten out if the minimum wage were lower deciding instead to cook at home or brown-bag it.
Make the US minimum wage high enough and the US might become like Spain where in 2014, 57.9% of young people in were unemployed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_unemployment_in_Spain#Cu...
Spain had a minimum wage of 752 euros per month in 2014:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ml9s8a132hlg_&m...
Of course, Spain was in the middle of an economic slowdown in 2014, but it is not impossible for a severe slowdown to hit the US, and if it does, the US government probably would not compensate for the slowdown by lowering the minimum wage. (The Spanish government didn't lower its minimum in response to their slowdown.)
So... paying people more makes them less likely to eat at a restaurant? That logic doesn't work, you're forgetting the other side of the consumer equation.
Look: you can find all the excuses you want. There will always be excuses.[1] But in real terms wages are declining at the bottom of the income scale, and that's not something you get to brush away as not a problem via some cherry picked data.
Is it genuinely your opinion that there is money in the US economy to give the super elite a 10x raise but none at all for anyone flipping burgers? Just say it if so and argue the moral level instead of all the excuse-making.
[1] Hell, Spain isn't even the only crazy outlier from 2014! Go look at Greece! Gosh, it's like both of those countries had something else going on besides simple market pressure due to wages, but whatever. There will always be an excuse.
It is often argued that it does, particularly by opponents of minimum wage increase. If they need to pay their salaries, they'll increase menu item prices, and a la supply and demand, fewer sales. This argument is for a single business only, I imagine the aggregate supply and demand is affected differently if one were to apply a minimum wage law instead of a hypothetical at one restaurant. Basic form of the argument would be if everyone makes more in a region, perhaps increases in prices are cancelled out. I'm not an economist, ymmv.
You whooshed on the point. If their workers are paid higher salaries, they'll turn around and spend that money, and a la supply and demand, more sales! Details matter, making an argument like this without numbers isn't analysis, it's excuse-making.
And the counter point (with numbers!) is that people at the bottom of society are getting poorer. And that this is more important as an immediate issue than a innumerate macroeconomic excuse.
I did mention it, that's the whole cancel out thing I was trying to hint at.
I do really dislike this type of argumentation and tend to dismiss it because its first order argumentation without empirical evidence. The real world isn't first order, so real data should be used. The sort of stuff journalistic outlets use instead of economic institutes. I disagree that this is excuse-making however, because it is indeed analysis at an approximate level b/c its first order, but I take it you would probably take it that to be an excuse as well :)
Also an banal extension of that line of reasoning leads to a counter point -- The products that they purchase will cost more because of an increase in the cost of manufacturing due to minimum wage laws. However globalisation side steps this by getting third worlds to produce most of the products, so kahbooy to those laws.
> Details matter, making an argument like this without numbers isn't analysis, it's excuse-making.
I agree, but this is kind of a moot point, you are burning the bridge we both stand on and saying standing on it is excuse-making because one person faces north instead of south. It's excuse-making in two directions.
> And the counter point (with numbers!) is that people at the bottom of society are getting poorer.
Objective poverty is decreasing in the world, but in the lenses of America, I do think you are correct and I agree that the bottom of the society are getting poorer in a relative wealth inequality sense.
However as a side topic, there's a larger issue with financial ignorance I think exists too -- something that a higher minimum wage won't really counter. I mean, look at the high average debt, aggressive cash loans, lack of short term liquidity, etc, the poor of society suffer from or are explicitly targeted at. It's a whole system with people actively trying gut you for cash. A lot of it is just plain asymmetric power in terms of negotiating, knowledge, and opportunity. The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer, cycle of poverty 101. I personally believe wages should be legally adjusted for livability in a sense (the term liveable wage rings a bell, but I'm not too familiar) but the root cause of the issue seems to be in the education system and the affordability, proximity, and availability of it. Heck, I even like the idea of later-in-life re-training but I haven't dug into the data on that. Housing is also another can of worms.
If replacing humans with robots is so easy, we should do it. We're already giving those humans taxpayer money to survive anyway. It's not like we're saving money with the current system, we're just funneling taxpayer money straight into the pockets of Walmart, McDonalds, etc.
sure, you may turn the dial up on the acceleration by bumping the minimum wage, but if you're arguing that people working full time yet still being relatively poor is worth briefly "saving" these jobs, i think you won't win many people over.
Put in example form, let's say we have 10 jobs that a group of blue collar and service workers could do in our economy. 3 of them are manufacturing, 5 are service, and 2 are skilled trades. Now 2 of the manufacturing jobs get eaten by globalization. We've still got 10 workers, but now they're competing for 8 jobs, and the 2 that lost their jobs are going to be willing to work for less money because less money is better than being unemployed. We've just depressed wages for the entire group. Meanwhile, of course, the owners of the factory picked up the gain from this entire transaction. Minimum wage doesn't really factor into it because it's an artificial floor that doesn't reflect market supply and demand.
globalization, from the perspective of someone in a so called advanced country, seems to generally turn into a dressed up way of arbitraging less regulated (environmental, workers' rights, etc.) environments in order to increase profits. this is an easy way for capital to defeat labor's hard fought gains in e.g. minimum wage, maximum hours, benefits, "strict" environmental regulations, paying taxes, and so forth. the proof is in the pudding: US mass manufacturing isn't outsourcing to Germany, Denmark or Switzerland, because the arbitrage in differences in regulations aren't there.
capital loves globalization because it can do things like pit a bunch of desperate places against each other then simply up and move to the "winner", sort of like the Amazon HQ search but internationally. labor, you'll find, typically doesn't have quite the same mobility. it then wags "low low prices" in front of the consumers who then find it easy to ignore their now jobless brothers and sisters as they shave a couple bucks off something or other.
the first wave of globalization took goods-producing jobs and moved them into places where the calculus of (labor + environmental regulation + taxes cost savings etc. > additional overhead/compliance + logistics), then shilled the people on the meme of "lower prices" while their communities rotted away back in country.
now the boomerang is on its way back and we're realizing that the loss of revenues, environmental ruin, illnesses of despair/desperation, etc. etc. may not be quite worth the alleged cost savings we were promised.
If it's rigged, it's important to remember that it's rigged in favor of those people too.
i hear this meme a lot. can you point to statistics that indicate global poverty outside of China has materially changed in recent decades?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/poverty-decline-without-c...
World population excluding China was about 5.8 billion in 2013 so that 17% change represents right around a billion people outside of China.
it's not hard to think about why global poverty has declined in many places. in asia, e.g. india has rural anti government policies, rice prices stabilization in indonesia/bangladesh/nepal, etc.
additionally, african poverty as best i can see hasn't budged much, perhaps indicating that government intervention like the in SE asia has been bearing most of the positive anti-poverty measures.
i'm still not convinced by your claim that globalization has literally lifted billions out of poverty. it may have helped, but you claim seems vastly overstated from what i'm seeing.
edit: just now seeing my original question wasn't too clear, apologies for that.
You note, correctly, that Africa hasn't seen as much improvement. Guess where there hasn't been nearly as much trade driven development?