If he had read more carefully, he might have notice the comments here that point out the complexity of this topic, while taking Lodwick to task for oversimplifying. (Simplification being his self-proclaimed skill, no?)

The bottom line is that you cannot take the question of a mandatory wage out of context to determine whether it is "good" or "bad" policy.

Wages, like all prices, are best when the equilibrium of relative value is achieved. This is not a simple see-saw zero-sum scenario. Wages balance the value of the work against the worker's compensation against the societal value of full (or near full) employment.

Also, "workers" cannot be generalized. For example, studies show that increases in minimum wage impact different demographics differently. Men are affected differently than women. Younger men are more negatively affected in terms of higher rates of unemployment. Middle-aged men, less so. Ask yourself: from a policy standpoint, is it the teenage burger flipper that we ought to favor, or the Chinese resident with three kids?

Furthermore, while it is true that most studies indicate that the impact of mandatory wage increases is a reduction is overall employment, it is also true that "full employment" (i.e., 0% unemployment) is actually NOT in the best interests of a functioning economy. This is, of course, also open to debate, but a little self-directed research goes a long way, and further comment is beyond the scope of this post on Gawker.

Now, add in the further complications of cyclical unemployment (i.e., caused by organic trends in business activity) as well as unemployment that is not a function of purely rational, theoretic models (e.g., getting sick, tending to dying relatives, burnout, etc.) and unemployment during periods when labor forces adapt to shifts in technology, policy or consumer demand (e.g., experts in punch-card computing, loggers in Washington State, steel workers in Pennsylvania, etc.) and add in the further complications of trade policy between sovereign nations and their impact on local employment...and what you are left with is a morass of competing policies that do not easily scale horizontally or vertically.

I know simplicity is your thing, Jakob, but sometimes simple is stupid. That's where all the ad hominem attacks come into play.

HTH

vulturesquadron

TallulahSkankhead

Ringles

Omelas

vulturesquadron

A minimum wage is the lesser of two evils. It's far better to have a society of some unemployed, more employed but poor, and even more doing fairly well or well enough (our society) than a society where the majority are incredibly poor and a small minority is doing fairly well (your utopia).

sing_michael_sing

skahammer

But what puzzles me is this: who the fuck is so under qualified that 5$ per hour is too much money?

And let's ask that 7 year old boy or girl in China making your horrible headband how they feel about having no set minimum wage, asshole.

mackintosh-squidbrains

Maria

eastofwest

Because he has an upcoming cameo in It Girls.

dearheart

dearheart

I'm glad that you have the subtle telepathic connection to online text that allows you to delve into the past and dredge up Lodwick's real motives. But for the rest of us normal humans, we don't automatically assume that every person's offhand retarded comments hide a complex Machiavellian scheme to hire 3$ an hour homeless gardeners, or whatever the good jesus you think is happening here.

Most evil in the world can be explained through incompetence. I'm not sure who said it originally but it's a very good axiom.

So calm down and have a drink. Drinks help the pills go down.

Pope John Peeps II

VirusWithShoes

Unfun

You think what really drives his opinion on this subject is CARING about poor people? Are you really that naive?

I'm sure he may have rationalized it to himself that way — and that's he's been rationalizing it long enough now that he now believes his own rationalization.

But the reality is probably much more simple: He needs to hire a bunch of cheap labor, and resents having to pay them more than $5 an hour. He wants to hire them for less money so he can stuff it back into his own priviliged, greedy pockets. I will bet you a million dollars that's the real source of his interest in this subject.

I hate people like him. And I hate Gawker for fawning all over him. it makes me sick.

MisterHippity

MisterHippity

golddigger

Although I guess caring in that awful, destructive form is sort of worse than not caring at all.

Pope John Peeps II

SeaBassTian

vulturesquadron

The whole concept of a corporate employer with a salaried workforce is tired, industrial revolution stuff.

vulturesquadron

VirusWithShoes

Unfun

Minimum wage IS the bottom rung, Mr. Economic Genius. And your idea that being paid $3/hr is a magic pass out of bottle collecting and scavaging for food ... are you really that niave? $24 dollars for 8 hours of work? Omg. The humanity.

ThereMustBeAPony

Elektra

Seriously, though, if he wants a counter to his stupid, stupid, poorly thought-out argument, it's that (1) Again, people do work for less than minimum wage sometimes -- the drunk guy who hangs out on my stoop gets paid a few bucks by the fried chicken place down the street to pick up trash once in a while. Of course, he can't count on regular work any more than they can count on him showing up on a set schedule.

Which leads us to (2) If you, as an employer, want some realistic assurance that your employee is going to show up for work and be fit to do the job, it's to your benefit that they're not sleeping on the street, where they're at risk of getting kicked out of the area by cops or having something worse happen. Granted, the $936 a month you can earn working forty hours a week at minimum wage doesn't do much in, say, Manhattan (although it goes much further in, say, Osseo, Wisconsin, where it's at least enough to rent living space), but it's almost twice as much as the $480 you'll get in Jakob Lodwick's oh-so-brilliant scenario.

moff

thedecider

This is pretty typical logic by someone of his socio-economic status: weak and completely lacking perspective.

First, no one, but no one, is saying to themselves "if only I could employ the homeless for $3 a day the homeless would be able to afford rent." Companies do, however, think to themselves "if I could be employing people for less money I'd be making more money." They do that in other countries you know. Let's ask those folks how living without a minimum wage is working out for them.

Second, this is not an attempt on the authors part to by sympathetic to the homeless and find a solution to their ills.

His argument starts from a perspective that seeks to make himself and companies richer. From there he opines that if we could remove worker protections, like the minimum wage, he could make more money. To sell this line of reasoning he needs a draw. Therefore, he then argues that without worker protections those living in extreme poverty will be able to escape extreme poverty.

While this logic is flawed, let's assume for a second that it would work. Even under that scenario those living in extreme poverty would only be able to pull themselves up to the level of poverty. All the while, we we knock the bottom out of the market for those who are able to make rent because the government mandates that people like him abide by government protections and pay there workers at least the minimum wage.

thedecider

skahammer

if_i_only_had_a_heart

In any case, if Lodwick can point to a real case (with, as he puts it, "facts derived from reality") where there's any reason outside of sheer inhumane greed to employ someone on a long-term basis at $3 an hour instead of $5.85 an hour, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, Jakob, you're just presenting, y'know, an "implausible hypothetical."

moff

Koreanish

But don't let me be obscure: I agree with you in general. I just think his idea about the minimum wage, if separated entirely from the person advocating it, does have some substance to it. It deserves a thought-out rejoinder, at least.

skahammer

I went to an Ivy, work at a corporate law firm, and find nothing more irritating than people who think they get to where they are simply because they somehow deserve it. I witness that shit everyday. Without knowing anything about him, I can bet Lodwick had a shitload of privileges that most people who have to pick out of garbage cans can't even imagine. You got lucky scumbag. Karma's a bitch.

Unfun

As per your ideas about minimum wage, your ignorance of Economics is of oceanic proportions. Hasn't it occured to you that if ending poverty was as easy as abolishing minimum wages laws it would have been done already, you little imbecile?

All the fluids from Julia's pussy got to your brain and killed all your functioning braincells. I guess stupidity can be a sexually transmitted disease.

Mariallena

VirusWithShoes

Unfun

Last time I checked, the crazies were unemployed because they were crazy and raised by incompetent parents. It's sort of a health/education/social issue in the U.S., not a minimum wage issue.

And the chicks who follow his Tumblr do it because they're making a "What To Look For In Your Guy So That You Know When To Dump Him" list.

inseptiv

VoxPopuli

To argue otherwise requires some fairly novel economic theory to replace the simple yet tremendously powerful explanations we use that rely on supply and demand.

I suspect the argument for the minimum wage is that setting a wage floor accomplishes the maximum social good, even if it means that some folks are being paid above market wages at the expense of those who could work for less. For those not even qualified to work for minimum wage, ideally a social safety net would help them meet their needs, which could include helping them get qualified to compete for min-wage jobs. Thus the social good realized from a minimum-wage policy is maximized.

My sense of US politics, though, is that increasing competition at that end of the wage scale is a political loser (see: immigration reform), and thus the necessary safety net never gets properly constructed.

So I think it's fair game to wonder whether the minimum wage really does maximize social good, in the current political climate.

- If you believe the theory articulated just above here is sound, you'll conclude that the optimum course of action is to change the political climate, and in the meantime admit that the good that the minimum wage does offsets the impact on certain folks who can't get any type of job as a result.

- On the other hand, if you think the political climate is an unchangeable given, then you might seek to make the minimum wage more flexible. It's not a crazy idea on its face.

skahammer

Trixie from Toronto

Cthulhah Bankhead

What the fuck is that? Work for shit pay or die?

What happened to this little nanopustule of entitlement? Did his cleaning lady ask for a raise?

SarahHeartburn

Buzz Killington

Hez

cockfightbarmitzvah

TedSez

C.R.E.A.M.

Private Hangnail

I mean, it's not like we expect Lodwick to have complicated systems of national social welfare at his fingertips. But at least he has the right spirit about it.

Pope John Peeps II

this douche thinks people aren't qualified for 4/hr jobs

and there you have the two poles of the mindset that is keeping working people down

also, i used to feel sorry for this douche due to his treatment at the hands of the one whose name must not be spoken

now, well, ha ha ha ha ha; he deserves nothing but the same

if_i_only_had_a_heart

intothelight

In any case, let's analyze his $3/hr suggestion. Note, in order to be short and sweet, this example doesn't take into account all of the complexities involved, so Lodwick may not get it. Assuming the average work day is 8hrs long and that an employee works 50 weeks out of the year, annual income at $3/hr comes to $6000 before taxes. Assuming an income tax of 10% and a payroll tax of 7.65%, annual income at $3/hr comes to $4941. That translates to a budget of $13.50 a day. Now, take into account rent, utilities (rising energy costs), food (rising food costs), and transportation (rising energy costs translate to rising transportation costs), and you are left in DEBT. Living in America on $3/hr is NOT sustainable.

Note, Lodwick doesn't seem to understand the concept of sustainability (see one of his nonsensical arguments here - [jakoblodwick.com]), so can we really blame him?

lothario

graffitigirl

Maria

Why not just KILL the poors, Jakob? because have you ever tried to feed a family on $3 an hour? Seriously, go back to JA and have a happy life together in Narcisstic Clueless Land. You deserve each other.

Tammany_Fall

graffitigirl

oyevay

Oface

rosaluxembourgeoise

Moreover, I would think that this particular "complex systems" analyst would be a little more sympathetic to the fact that a large number of those who end up digging through the trash for pizza crusts and empty bottles are there because of mental illnesses that are going untreated, thanks to crippling systemic flaws in the way out country treats (or doesn't, as the case may be) its mentally ill.

But no, Mr. Lodwick, you're totally right. We should pay homeless schizophrenics almost nothing for jobs they are mentally unfit to hold! They'll love it, and be totally grateful, I'm sure.

flossy

mydeadgayson

mathnet

Wait, no I don't.

Clarence Rosario

wrongneighborhood

UnstableMabel