The bogus case against the minimum wage hike

[PETRUS]

Eight states and one city (San Francisco) raised their minimum wage this week, providing a pay raise to just over 1 million workers. In the face of this good news, the opponents of the minimum wage are warning of serious job loss. They are likely to be proved wrong, yet again.

<snip>

There are two reasons why this could be true. The first is simply that workers may feel better about their jobs and take them more seriously if they are paid a higher wage. In effect, the higher minimum wage will make the workers getting paid the minimum better workers. Economists call this effect an “efficiency wage” and there is a substantial body of empirical research to support it.

The other way in which a minimum-wage hike could increase productivity is by reducing turnover. Turnover imposes substantial costs even for the least skilled positions. It requires managers’ time to review applications and interview applicants. In addition, once a new worker is hired, they will require some on-the-job training and supervision. If a higher minimum wage persuades workers to stay at their job longer, many employers will more than offset the higher wage costs by reduced turnover costs. Recent research has demonstrated just this kind of strong connection between a higher minimum wage and lower turnover.

<snip>

Higher minimum wages are a simple and effective mechanism for helping the lowest-paid workers. It is also important to remember this is not new ground. In the prosperous decades immediately following World War II, the minimum wage was actually higher than it is today. Adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage would have to rise to about $9 an hour to reach its peak level in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth over the last three decades — as it did in the three decades after World War II — the rate would be over $15 today.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/the_bogus_case_against_the_minimum_wage_hike/singleton/

More at the link.

[glowing]

1. And in most places $15.00 an hour would be a living wage.. Below that, its impossible

or takes two incomes to make a household survive... It's the only way my husband and I survive... There is no option for one of us to be a "stay at home" parent. With as many people working today, the amount of time spent working a week should be lowered to 30 hrs a week and the pay should be a rate that is a livable income. This would cause an immediate need for all places of business to increase staff... and more people having actual income would allow for the economy to grow... Along with that add to the pile, nearly free advanced education (college and tech schooling) and a single-payer health care system, and we'd be out of this horrible economy in no time.. Oh, we would actually have to negotiate fair trade agreements, not free trade which depresses other people around the world too.

[surrealAmerican]

2. It could also increase productivity another way:

If the minimum wage is high enough, fewer workers would need second (or sometimes third) jobs to make ends meet. Employees who are forced to take multiple jobs get less sleep, and have less time for personal issues, making them less productive.

[Populist_Prole]

3. MW opponents are full of shit as usual, and have the usual fake concern for "job losses"

Why is it that when it comes to hiking the minimum wage, the corporatists and their toadies boo-hoo all the crocodile tears over job losses for the lowest paid employees ( which has never happened anyway ) but in every other context, they are unabashedly anti-employee? They'd drop-kick a thousand jobs at a clip to bring their stock price up a quarter point.