Declaration ahead of time: this essay does not use gender-neutral language.  You'll get over it.

I was listening to the news during a break on talk radio the other night, and Arizona Democrats are again pushing for a raise in our state's minimum wage (we're currently on the federal $5.15/hr rate) -- stating that if we don't raise it, it will be (*gasp*) the 9th year in a row without an increase.

Futhermore, the new initiative is supposed to increase the minimum each year for the next ten to adjust for inflation.

I'm not exactly sure why it is you people don't understand why minimum wages damage the economy.  Let me try to explain it to you in a simple, easy-to-understand way.

Business A employs a large, unskilled labor force at minimum wage.  Let's say they have 600 workers working at $5.15/hr.  The minimum wage rate increase to, for example, $5.75 -- this is $360 per hour increase, or $14,400 per week increase, or $720,000 per year increase (assuming a 50-week year).

The business isn't going to pay that increase; the customers are.  So let's say that each man-hour of labor produces $8.00 of market value (the sharp reader will now understand that the business owner will be having his earnings cut from $2.85/man-hr to $2.25/man-hr).  The business owner will now artificially raise the price of his goods to $8.60/man-hr.

Now the market is going to be hurt in one of two ways, depending on whether Business A delivers essential services.  If Business A delivers essential services, like electricity or water, everyone in the region will be hit with the increased costs of delivering that service.  As the saying goes, "everyone will be hit by it," so the burden will be distributed, but we'll effectively be taking money out of the pockets of consumers, which will hurt the economy further (because fewer goods will be able to be purchased).

Hopefully, it should be obvious that the price of the goods on the market has increased at a rate consistent with the amount of man-hours required to produce it.  This actually benefits big-business, which is better at producing larger quantities of product faster.  For instance, Tippman, a paintball manufacturer, might only require two man-hours of labor to manufacture a paintball marker (I highly doubt it even requires this, but this is simply to illustrate an example).  Mom-and-Pop Airsmith, who can produce an equivalent-quality marker but require three man-hours of labor because they can't afford such high-tech machinery, are competing with Tippman at a local store.  No matter what price they are at, Tippman is always going to be more competitive, naturally.  But Mom-and-Pop might need to take a loss to stay competitive with Tippman, and while this is true all the time, with the increase in minimum wage, Tippman will by default become more competitive by not adjusting its product price.  This is because big business earns its money in volume whereas small business depends on repeat customers; customers are less-likely to stick with mom-and-pop when their price is less comparable to the big-business alternative.  To add insult to injury, if the big business increases its product's price to match that of the small business, we've artificially inflated the value of that product (remember that inflation is when the market price of a product increases faster than the market value of the total cost of producing the product).

Furthermore, having a minimum wage prevents wages from falling when labor (as a commodity) is in high supply -- that is, when there is high unemployment.  Having a high wage discourages employers from hiring additional workers, which is a barrier to decreasing unemployment.  As we saw during the Great Depression, people who cannot afford to provide sustenance often revert to petty theft to survive, which causes more inflation (paying customers have to make up the difference).

I hope that you all can see clearly that minimum wages are bad in general, and increasing minimum wages causes more problems than it solves.

I can see clearly, and I've argued this point time and time again. They still don't get it.

Having reasonable minimum wages makes a lot of sense. Increasing them could cause inflation, but they should also be raised as a result of inflation. Minimum wages should be designed to match the minimum level of pay that you estimate someone will need to make a decent living without working more than however many hours you allow per week.

Minimum wages works against those who seek to abuse people. Here, we do not have minimum wages set by the government, but it is being discussed. Why? Well, for example because of people fooling polish workers to come here and work for crap pay, leaving them unable to pay for their stay and their ride back.

If everyone could make a decent living off of minimum wage that would not be good. In order for our economy to work there has to be some poor people.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13701.msg139819#msg139819 date=1135908506]
If everyone could make a decent living off of minimum wage that would not be good. In order for our economy to work there has to be some poor people.
[/quote]That isn't very nice.
People should be able to live at least

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13701.msg139820#msg139820 date=1135908814]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13701.msg139819#msg139819 date=1135908506]
If everyone could make a decent living off of minimum wage that would not be good. In order for our economy to work there has to be some poor people.
[/quote]That isn't very nice.
People should be able to live at least
[/quote]

The way of the world isn't always nice.

True, but we're supposed to be better & help less fortunate people out

I understand that argument, but I still disagree with it. I, in general, agree with letting the market sort things out for itself - as opposed to enacting heavy regulation - but there are some things the market cannot be trusted to set.

Minimum acceptable wage is one of these things. The reason for that is the same as the reason for the other things that the market shouldn't decide: the people who bear the cost of not having a minimum wage (workers) are not the people who benefit from not having a minimum wage. In the absence of a minimum wage, a business requiring unskilled labour can set its wages at any amount, without subjecting itself to any negative consequence. As a result, other people suffer.

Unskilled labour is something that society needs, but it is also something that society has too much of. I very much hope that that will one day not be the case, and when that day arrives, a minimum wage will not be necessary. Unskilled labour does have value, but the market undervalues it because supply exceeds demand. For as long as that is the case, it is necessary to have a minimum wage, to ensure that unskilled, full-time workers have an acceptable quality of life.

But by the time unskilled labor is gone (I assume it'll be done by machines) companies will be replacing skilled laborers w/machines as well.  Then there are no jobs for anyone.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13701.msg139822#msg139822 date=1135909904]
True, but we're supposed to be better & help less fortunate people out
[/quote]

Then let's allow people to help them out by donating to charities, not sucking 20%+ of their income each year.  People are usually very willing to be philanthropic - it's a natural impulse.  People are nice by default.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13701.msg139843#msg139843 date=1135920657]
People are nice by default.
[/quote]

I cannot overstate how much I disagree with this point.  If anything, people are cruel and self-serving by default.  In my experiences, perhaps less than 1% of the people I've met I would deem genuinely good.

Aside from my own experiences, psychologists have done much research on this, and indeed it is quite agreed upon that man's baser instincts are not good "by default": infact, to the contrary, it is in our nature to be completely self-centred, without regard to our fellows.  Please read on Freud's "ID".

Good people are exceptions.

I'm sorry, but merely relying on the good nature of mankind to help those who are less fortunate sounds like a really crummy and poorly thought out plan.

Hmm, well, while thinking about little babies I've seen them both share & take away from eachother.  BUT probably mostly taking.
So yeah, I'd say people are generally self absorbed.

Rule, did the research indicate whether the majority of people were self centered because of conditioning, or that they were born that way?

Well, I follow Hobbes on this in that man is warlike and brutish in his natural state.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13701.msg139866#msg139866 date=1135956101]
Well, I follow Hobbes on this in that man is warlike and brutish in his natural state.
[/quote]

I'm not siding with either until I know whether their studies and results were inclusive of the question of nature vs nurture.  The question would be if nature alone accounts for mankind's natural state of peaceful or brutish, altruist or self-centered, or whether nurture was somewhat responsible.  If nurture cannot be eliminated, then is the conclusion that nurture could change mankind into being naturally peaceful and caring about others?

And yes, this will come back to minimum wage.

I have put together some rambling details of Freud's theories, but have summarized things near the end of this post.  I'd suggest skipping to the summary.

When I referred to research done on the matter, I had Freud in mind, although to be honest, some of his work is now in question by modern psychologists.  Notwithstanding, the reason his theories on human consciousness/subconsciousness have been around for so long is because they have been quite successful at predicting human behavior. 

According to Freud, we are born only with the "Id" -- a part of our subconscious that operates on the "pleasure principle":  the id is completely self-serving, without regard to others.  This sort of behavior is often conspicuously seen in babies (up to the age of 3). 

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that this is the first part of our personality to develop.  In a vulnerable state, in most cases it would hinder our chances of survival to act otherwise.  This self-centred behavior could be "selected" for.

The ego then develops which is supposedly our conscious mind (rather unimportant in this discussion).

Then the superego develops -- "the largely unconscious part of the personality responsible for moral self-control -- roughly, the 'conscience.'"  It supposedly develops from moral and ethical restraints placed on us by our caregivers, or the environment.

Supposedly the ID has the most profound effect on our personality throughout our lives.  Some more info on Freud's structural model of personality can be found here, and here.

--------------------

Although the details of Freud's theories have been put in question, there is a general trend in our development that he spotted, which is backed by modern studies.

Summary:
Intrinsically, we are all self-centred.  We seek pleasure, and receive it by fulfilling our baser needs: the need for food, sex, and so on...  In the early stages of development (e.g. mostly independent of our environment) we exclusively exhibit this sort of behavior.

I think in general, people do whatever makes them feel good -- and in some cases, it may make one feel good to help others.

The part of our subconscious that rewards us for altruistic behavior is not purely instictual, but rather is strongly influenced by our environment. 

Of course this isn't "set in stone," but it appears to be the best approximation we have for human behavior.  It also seems clear that certain people will be genetically pre-disposed to have more agreeable (nicer) personalities than others (many personality disorders (e.g. Turrets) are inherited).

Rule...  I don't know if you've ever taken a psychology class... but pretty much Freud has been made the butt of the discipline over the last 15 or so years.  Primarily it's because he didn't practice the scientific method.

I'll come up with some research about altruistic behavior and it being a natural impulse.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13701.msg139891#msg139891 date=1135971406]
Rule...  I don't know if you've ever taken a psychology class... but pretty much Freud has been made the butt of the discipline over the last 15 or so years.  Primarily it's because he didn't practice the scientific method.
[/quote]

Actually, I haven't, but I do know that his theories have hardly been the "butt of the discipline" over the last 15 years, because "he didn't practice the scientific method." First of all, hasn't the sacrosanct "scientific method" been applied in great excess of 15 years?  Why would it take so long to disregard his theories because he didn't apply this method?

Second, the study of Freud's theories are a major component of most first year psychology classes.  An emphasis is not placed on discrediting them, but learning more about them, because they have played an important role in predicting human behavior over the last 100 years.  Further, the first link I gave for a brief introduction to Freud's structural model is written as an introductory guide to psychology by Dr. Chriss Heffner (PhD in psychology, and is published in peer reviewed journals).  There is no disclaimer on his site about how Freud's theories have been the "butt of the discipline."  Clearly your implication that his ideas should be thrown away is more than a little unfounded.

Third, I clearly stated that details in Freud's theories have recently come under criticism.  You act as though I'm not aware of this.  I also pointed out that his model has survived as long as it has because of the success it has met as a predictor.  I believe that most of the criticism is directed towards his oversimplification of the human mind -- e.g. why only three divisions -- as opposed to the general ideas behind his theories.

4) I never claimed that Freud's theories were truth.  You will never find conclusive evidence that man is good or bad by nature.  All we have are models that have met various degrees of success.  It seems that the ones best able to predict our behavior suggest that we are intrinsically self-serving, and that a desire to be "altruistic" is predominantly a product of our environment.  On that note I highly doubt you'll find any acclaimed research that "altruistic behavior" is a "born-in" natural impulse. 

5) Yes, I realize that some of my claims are not as well supported as they could be.  I know support is there, as I have read serious studies suggesting that we are instinctually self-centred; this is really quite obvious from an evolutionary standpoint, as I have pointed out.  I do not have time at the moment to go on a hunt for many peer-reviewed sources, so I decided to refer to theories that have been the cornerstone of psychology, at the expense of opening myself up to a little criticism (hence the multiple disclaimers in my previous post).

RATHER than start patronizing wage prices and argumentivly pitching "cause and effect" lingo to one another...Wouldn't a significant result of all financial problems be the fact that our economy continuously distills the value of the American dollar by remaining in debt, borrowing money to pay the debt, then borrowing even more money to pay the same previous amount because of its lessening worth.  :-\