We used to have a career economy with economic ladders for people to climb in nearly all endeavors. Since the second depression (great recession) America has slipped into a "gig" economy; i.e. lots of part time work with no benefits and fewer ladders to climb.

In my youth, minimum wage was always considered an entry level (starting point) for the new worker with few, if any, skills to bring to the job. In that era it was never intended to be a "living wage", it was a "foot in the door" leading to better things.

As recently as 1989 the US Postal service was paying $5.00 per hr. for workers who were starting. By the mid 90s wage inflation has raised that to about $11.00 / hr. Were the $11 workers more skilled that the $5 workers? No, scarcity in labor had force the USPS to pay more. The Postal Service had also perfected the 30 hour work week, and 12 week position to avoid paying benefits to this entry class of worker. Workers were terminated after 12 weeks, then in 2 or three weeks, after your name had been removed from the payroll system, they would rehire the same workers. This created a class of worker with no raises, no ladders to climb, no bid rights (you need to be full time to bid and a total of 12 weeks seniority would not sustain a bid even if you went to court to win bid rights), and no benefits. Postal management believed it to be best for their model. Maybe, but when was the last time anyone wrote a praise letter to the editor regarding the courteous and cheerful service at the USPS. And, I would add, even they couldn't keep the hourly rate at $5, scarcity forced the issue.

These are the same strategies that many American businesses adopted to avoid the burden of ObamaCare.

We do not have wage inflation to amount to much because the 4.7% unemployment is erroneous. If labor were that tight, businesses would have to pay more. With barely 60% of the workforce participating in the economy there is plenty of labor to be had at less than $15.

A career economy will not prosper until the disincentives from ObamaCare are removed. Small and larger businesses will continue to work people 35 hours or less, or hire less than 50 workers to avoid the issue. Larger firms may continue to provide employer based health insurance, or pay the fine an surrender the difference to the employee allowing them to purchase their own insurance. Until this model is disrupted, and the need for employees causes business to hire, hire full time, hire at higher wages, and offer benefits as incentives,....we will continue to flounder in a "Gig" economy. "Gig" meaning when this work situation runs out the worker must find a new situation.

So, what will a forced $15/ hr. minimum wage do in the economy? Every business will do a cost benefit analysis to determine if they can get suitable production out of the $15/ hr. cost. Everybody wants more money, but the catch is there is no free lunch. To get more money, productivity has to go up. Since the unskilled worker cannot produce more because he does not have the skill set to produce more, then to make the equation work the price must go up. That means the wage is subsidized by the loyal customers (maybe). Or, the business will find another way. Like paying more skilled workers (overtime) who can produce more and forgoing the hiring, training, and payroll compliance costs of another new employee. Or, maybe automation is now worth the investment with a prevailing minimum wage of $15/ hr. Automation has been employed at the USPS too, killing about 10 jobs for every 1 that remains.

The incorrect thought in the progressive policy of pushing minimum wage is that the employer or customer has no choice. If it becomes too expensive to eat out, people will cook at home. If the productivity model cannot be satisfied then businesses large and small will find another way. The only way to raise the living wage is to increase productivity. That's why the guy with the back hoe, makes more than the guy with a shovel...the back hoe worker can produce more.

If we want to raise the living wage, the fastest way possible, we need to change the incentives that businesses operate under today. That means taxes, regulations, and trade agreements need to be optimized. Of course this is only my opinion.

And what frequently gets overlooked in the minimum wage debate is that employment mobility is a factor of economic growth. When economic growth is stagnant, it is harder for people making minimum wage to leverage their experience (absent education) to improve their station. They are the most vulnerable to market conditions because they have the most direct competitors - thus the least job security.

One other thing that government wage manipulation does, however, is not only to price these people out of the market entirely, but to waste money on a "fix" that can't work in the first place without gross monetary inflation. It's a circular cycle that only profits those in power.

The push for another increase in the minimum wage is a natural consequence of currency manipulation buy the government and the resulting decline in the value of the dollar. In the last 50 years the dollar has dropped in value by more than 95 percent. Th government runs on deficit spending and the loans are in dollars. By engineering the decline of the dollar it is possible to pay back these loans at an effective discount. If anyone but the government were to pull this kind of fraud it would be considered grand larceny. Just another reason to return to precious metals as a form of currency. Once again, Ayn Rand was right. No surprise.

Good find, Nick. A free market should be none of the government's business.
Dobrien has it right with his stated reply: "The free market should always determine the wage for an employee."
Now I'm reminded of what Ronald Reagan said were the scariest words you can here as being~
"Hi, we're from the government and we are here to help you."

Thank you, sir. Just my take on it, as I do not run a business, I am just a peasant in the fields of Intel....

I like this summary better than the actual article.

No, none as such, I think his point is the same one I have seen for a long time, and that is, it is a lot more complex of an issue than just "pay them this" dictate. For instance, you may have someone who is older, more skilled, but not experienced. They may offer more to a company than the teenager. You might pay them more for a number of reasons, but their value drives the bottom line. The teenager, who may blossom into an awesome star, starts at the bottom and, if blossoms, rises fast. A dictated wage takes all that away, and means an employer must spend a defined amount for a person, whether they are worth it or not. Lots of people love to complain about the minimum wage, but I ask: Why are you working there? The excuses and stories get long and detailed, but usually add up to: for some reason, it is not a greater value to themselves to go or do something else, than to be where they are. So, they want to be where they are, and yet they want to "make money". I see people who are both unemployed, get food stamps, and yet have a 4 wheeler and a boat. Their kids wear rags, and they get their food from whatever is allowed, but, by golly, that 4 wheeler and boat are to be saved at all costs. Same argument with :inner cities" people. Why live in a cess pool like Chicago, when there are a billion other choices? The minimum wage just makes it that much harder by enabling such lack of value in themselves.

Yes to all the above Dob. The basic tenant is that anytime government regulates anything, it is now an artificial environment where normal rules do not apply. By regulating wages, they are establishing the value of a workers efforts. IT also removes any incentive to say "take this job and shove it" and move on to better grounds. Add to that the influence of unions (where removing an incompetent is sometimes harder than Hillary Beast getting elected) adds more skew to the mix.
I think another little thought of issue is the "brilliant" minds that get hired at incredible wages, mainly due to connections, and not ability, who then go on a "cut costs" rampage, cutting headcount (which never seems to involve the management ranks), but further neuters the dysfunctional balance between supply and demand. Lots of laws and rules were added between 1930 and today "to protect workers rights" that really resulted in "protecting workers" to the point they no longer have an incentive to improve or change. I see that in my own line of work where a good 80% or more show up for work, and then get upset if rated "average". This is part of the whole dichotomy of our society, where the Dumbocraps have set to building a dependent culture of subservience, that a lot of people accept, as long as they get their basic needs met, and a little more.

Hi Nickursis,
The free market should always determine the wage for an employee.
The best way for the market or an economy to increase wages ,
is with a strong growth that creates demand for workers which exceeds the supply
of workers. The next best step is for people to be educated , to teach them early on in life that the skills and knowledge they attain will provide value to get value.
We all understand wage collusion among companies hurts employees. Why is it different for the state to do it?
I always think about the worker who has increased his value receiving wage increases with time and experience and is now earning $15 an hour.
When new employees are hired making $15 , how will he get compensated for his greater value?
Some would say raise prices but those higher prices could cause a drop in market share due to lower wages with a competitor.
BTW in the story a 30 something man hurting his back so bad he can't work would result in disability as well as an insurance claim against his oil co.
Regards,
DOB

"he had good points for both sides"
Did he actually have any points in favor of a minimum wage?

So, being a business guy, you believe he is accurately stating the problem and framing it right? It seemed so to me, and he had good points for both sides, however, paying a mom 15.00 an hour because she is a mom and a kid 8.00 an hour for the same work does not seem right either. Would have been better if the mom was a manager managing the kids.

"I can possibly pay them for the value they deliver and would love to pay them more, but I simply can't."
And Mr. McKissen probably loves the feeling when he figures outs a way to solve someone's problem in way they're happy to pay for, so he can give a raise not as alms but out of "yes! We're making this work, and I want more of the same!!"

I agree with this article completely. The world has teenagers who don't need the money, lazy people, and hard-working people busting their bottoms (probably not for long) for $2/hr on Upwork or $8/hr at Taco Bell. .