Reason-Rupe Poll: 72 Percent Favor Raising the Minimum Wage but 57 Percent Would Oppose If It Costs Jobs

Americans like the idea of hiking the cost of labor, but only if it doesn't price workers out of jobs.

Nearly three-fourths of Americans favor raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, while 26 percent oppose according to the latest Reason-Rupe poll. However, support flips and 57 percent oppose a hike if raising the minimum wage causes some employers to lay off workers or hire fewer workers, while only 38 percent would still favor the move. Nevertheless, 58 percent do not believe raising the minimum wage will harm jobs and 39 percent believe it will.

Assuming no cost to jobs, majorities of Democrats (88 percent), independents (70 percent), and Republicans (55 percent) favor raising the minimum wage. Self-identified libertarians are the only political group that opposes it (55 percent). Support declines with rising income and age, but majorities continue to support the proposal. Even a majority (53 percent) of tea partiers support raising the minimum wage, but they are twice as likely as non-tea partiers to oppose.

Republicans Are Divided On Raising the Minimum Wage

There is a considerable divide within the Republican Party over raising the minimum wage, even though a majority (55 percent) favor doing so. Democrats are more unified on this issue.

Among Republicans making less than $60,000 a year 63 percent support raising the minimum wage and 43 percent oppose. In stark contrast, only 35 percent of Republicans making more than $60,000 a year support a wage hike and 54 percent oppose.

A solid majority (64 percent) of young Republicans support raising the minimum wage, compared to 43 percent of Republicans over 55 years old.  Instead a majority (53 percent) of older Americans oppose raising the minimum wage, compared to 36 percent of young Republicans.

Republicans who do not support the tea party movement favor raising the wage by a margin of 60 to 37 percent. In contrast, a majority of Republican tea party supporters oppose raising the minimum wage with 44 percent in favor and 52 percent opposed.

Support Flips When Possible Costs Are Considered

While majorities favor raising the minimum wage as a costless proposition, 57 percent would oppose and 38 percent favor if doing so were to cause job layoffs or slow job growth. Support flips as half of those who initially favored raising the minimum wage change their minds if it were to hurt jobs. This shift primarily occurs among young people (58 percent), African-Americans (61 percent), and women (52 percent). For instance, nearly two-thirds of unmarried women would switch their vote while 6 in 10 unmarried men would not.

It is relevant to know how Americans would make trade-offs between higher wages for some and possible job losses for others, particularly because the economics field has not reached a consensus on this matter. Some economists argue there will be no harm to jobs, for instance hereherehere, while others say there will be, for instance hereherehere.)

But Most Americans Consider Job Losses Unlikely, Except Republicans, Libertarians, and Tea Party Supporters

What ultimately drives public opinion on minimum wage, as with most public policy, is whether Americans actually believe raising wage floors will cost jobs or cost them personally. The poll found 39 percent believe raising the minimum wage will reduce jobs, 35 percent say it will have no impact, and 23 percent thought it would increase jobs. In sum, 58 percent do not expect the minimum wage to harm jobs.

The only groups in which a majority expects minimum wage increases to impact jobs include Republicans (54 percent), self-identified libertarians (67 percent), and tea party supporters (56 percent).

Groups who are most likely to reject the claim that the minimum wage harms jobs, include Democrats (70 percent), self-identified progressives (76 percent), and nonwhite Americans (71 percent).

Even Americans Who Think the Minimum Wage Reduces Jobs Will Still Favor an Increase Unless Jobs Are Explicitly Mentioned

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Nevertheless, 58 percent do not believe raising the minimum wage will harm jobs...

    That's encouraging. I thought the rate of economic illiteracy in America was higher than that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, me too. Some people maybe just guessed right:)

  • DarrenM||

    We need to raise the minimum wage so we can get more taxes to pay for the people who lose their jobs to go on Welfare.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    It's actually encouraging because glibertarian lies haven't sunk in, and the immediate instinct of most americans isn't to hug a millionaire. Poor people maybe don't see themselves as temporarily disposessed rich people; maybe people are actually starting to believe not everybody can be rich.

    Try harder, guys!

  • kbolino||

    How many people 50 years ago had cell phones? How many do today? You can't talk about poverty if you don't know what wealth is.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    very true

  • SQRLSY One||

    In other news today, 90% of pepples surveyed are in favor of revoking the law of gravity, but support for this revision of the laws drops to a mere 35% “if such revision were to cause people or their pets to float off into airless space.”

  • some guy||

    "Gravity harms millions of people every year. Everyone from the rock climbers in Yosemite to the seniors in their showers fear it. It's time we did something about this menace. Call your Representative and Senators today!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    Don’t laugh… I read about 10 years ago about a high school science student doing a “science experiment” whereby he told people being surveyed about the various dangers of “dihydrous monoxide”, and asked if it should be banned. 85% or so said yes, a few wanted to know, first, if it maybe had some very good benefits to it, before it is banned, and a VERY few said, “No, silly, we can NOT outlaw water!” … Now all these years later I can find so PRO people who say it should be legal, see … http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/ … And some ANTI people, see http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html Me, I just dunno any moar… Y’all study up and see what YOU think… Maybe we need more SURVEYS to study this!

  • SQRLSY One||

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....oxide_hoax
    … and brought to widespread public attention in 1997 when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?".

  • AlmightyJB||

    "SQRLSY One|12.13.13 @ 10:44AM|#"

    That was the awesome:)

  • concerned cynic||

    LMAO!!!!

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    What's it like to be so fucking sure of yourself? I want you to imagine places other than America who have instituted living wages and somehow, there are still jobs.

    The point is, I guess, we can either force (with violence) employers to pay a living wage and/or we can have a robust social safety net. But the glibertarian solution - nothing - shockingly isn't working.

  • kbolino||

    Jobs will always exist. Somebody has to staff the offices of the politburo to ensure the proles don't lapse back into false consciousness, after all.

    Places with higher minimum wages exist, so why don't you move there? Oh, that's right, they tightly restrict immigration because they have an unsustainable model, the collapse of which would only be hastened by the influx of idiots like you who cannot produce enough value to justify the "living wage" the employers are forced to pay.

    If you want to initiate violence to get your will, then you are already a fascist pig and deserve the same fate as your ideological forebear Mussolini.

  • waffles||

    Is the picture the proposed minimum wage? That seems like too much. I think this is more like what they're after.

  • Eric Bana||

    If somebody thinks they have drawn a right triangle that disproves the Pythagorean Theorem, the triangle they drew is wrong.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Nuh uh, my Common core book says right triangles are bad, you should only draw left triangles.

  • ||

    They never seemed to notice that increasing minimum wage also does a lot to exacerbate (or just distort) income disparity issues as well.

    The guy salaried at $65K/yr. is gonna feel 50% increase in minimum wage a lot more than a billionaire. Billionaires don't eat at McDonalds.

  • UnCivilServant||

    That implies that us within the margin of error of $65K do. (Though I do shop at places staffed near minimum wage.)

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How many of those looking to raise the minimum wage will throw tantrums and gnash their teeth about how "unfair" the system is when the bottom rungs of the economic ladder can't get jobs. Yes, it is unfair. But, the unfairness, the injustice, is their idiocy and ignorance being imposed as policy.

    Is it just me, or are people getting stupider?

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    Try working for and surviving on $8.00/hr. Full stop. Shut the fuck up unless you know what it's like (I do.). Six days a week and not even 40 hours; no overtime. It's an intellectual issue discussed by bowtie-wearing sociopathic neoliberals who are seventy steps removed from anyone who actually has to survive on this shit wage.

    Are you fucking rich? Why are you defending and arguing for rich people? If you're a rich fuck I totally get the glibertarian position.

  • kbolino||

    You get no overtime because your employer cannot afford to pay you $12/hour. Yet you want to force him to. Guess what, if your job isn't worth $12/hour now, it won't be worth $12/hour in the future, either.

    Capitalism isn't apologia for rich fucks. It's the only system that consistently produces wealth, as opposed to socialism, which consistently destroys it.

    You think you're getting screwed because you expect to do nothing of value and get paid a king's ransom for it. The irony of course being that you are being paid a king's ransom and then some, since on your $8/hour you can buy things like cell phones and flat screen televisions that the Kings of yore could not dream of procuring, even if they expended all the wealth of their entire kingdoms.

  • ||

    I find it odd that advocates of raising minimum wages only try for 10 to 15. The same logic applies for 20 to 30$.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Don’t think so small-minded… I am thinking we should mandate a $500 / hour min wage… I have now established my bona fides as being more compassionate than ALL of ye stingy ones!!! COMBINED!!! Bwah-Ha-Ha, he-he-he!!!!

  • Tyger_purr||

    When the price of bread went from one penny to two people were outraged, "why not charge a dollar?"

    Same logic.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:26PM|#
    "When the price of bread went from one penny to two people were outraged, "why not charge a dollar?"
    Same logic."

    No, asshole, it is not.
    The market directed the bread price; you are demanding the government do so for labor.

  • The Last American Hero||

    This is just like the folks that liked Obamacare until they realized they had to pay, and probably pay more for less insurance than they previously had.

  • Edwin||

    I dunno if I believe in the minimum-wage-always-causes-job-losses thing. There was that study of during a minimum wage hike of employees at fast food places, and they saw the employment rate go UP.
    Then I think to myself, that makes sense, because how many people you hire at a fast food place is almost solely an element of demand (this is for while the minimum wage is still reasonable, the hike in the study wasn't huge). I think the problem is the SUPPLY/PRICE curve, the idea that it's always positive, is largely false in modern service economies. The idea that the next worker and next worker adds less and less production is false for food service and retail, and that more production is more costly per item is also false, again, though, just in foodservice/retail.
    It made sense back when a LOT of jobs were factory work, when the econ studies were done and these ideas established. But nowadays we have a largely service economy.
    Now the problem THERE is why is the service industry so large, and there are no factory jobs? Well thats obviously NOT from the free market, its from our crappy employment-related laws

  • VicRattlehead||

    If i can replace your minimum wage job with a machine that costs .02% of your pay to run with maintenance included you bet your ass i'm upgrading

  • Tyger_purr||

    If there is a machine that can replace a MW job for .02% of the cost then there is probably reasons other than cost that you have not already made that change and the raise in MW isn't going to change that.

  • Sevo||

    Lemme guess:
    You're going to show us that raising the cost of labor does not reduce the sale of that labor.
    Did I get it?

  • Tyger_purr||

    The sale of labor is only reduced when the cost exceeds the return.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:28PM|#
    "The sale of labor is only reduced when the cost exceeds the return."
    Yes, so raising the minimum wage is a mistake.

  • Tyger_purr||

    Only if you can show that the increase would cause costs to exceed returns and there is no other way to adjust.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:23PM|#
    "Only if you can show that the increase would cause costs to exceed returns and there is no other way to adjust."

    No, asshole, I don't own the company. I don't have to show anything.
    You, OTOH have to PROVE your claim. Let's see it.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    "other way to adjust" less profits for ceos? having to drive a mercedes instead of a bentley? ARE YOU CRAZY.

  • kbolino||

    The $100k the CEO saved by buying a Mercedes instead of a Bentley could be distributed among his company's 1,000 employees as a whopping $100 one-time bonus. Then what?

    Moreover, no doubt Bentley employees make more than Mercedes employees, so by not purchasing the latter in preference to the former, the CEO is contributing to an economic environment where auto workers are paid less.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    B-b-but you're a JOB CREATOR!!!!!!!!! We have to give you tax breaks and cut red tape!!!!!!!!!!1

  • kbolino||

    Taking less is not giving. If lowering the taxes you extract is the difference between a business existing and not existing, then by pretty damn obvious deductive reasoning the taxes are too high and are stifling economic activity.

    You might rather live in destitute shitholes with nothing of value to offer the world, but some of us would like to have a future for mankind.

  • Sevo||

    Edwin|12.13.13 @ 12:02PM|#
    "I dunno if I believe in the minimum-wage-always-causes-job-losses thing. There was that study of during a minimum wage hike of employees at fast food places, and they saw the employment rate go UP."

    Well, in that case the answer is simple! If raising the MW means more jobs, why just raise it to $350/hr!
    Right, Edwin? I mean you can see the logic right there!

  • Tyger_purr||

    That is not logic. It is a logical fallacy.

    Although over time it may happen. Just as bread once cost a penny, it has risen to 100x that or more.

  • kbolino||

    Identify the fallacy.

  • Tyger_purr||

    appeal to fear.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:35PM|#
    "appeal to fear."

    I'm sure you have only an associates in bullshit.
    But bullshit you have.

  • Tyger_purr||

    If you believe that a "why not $350/hr" scare tactic is a logical argument against $10/hr then you must have a PhD.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:27PM|#
    "If you believe that a "why not $350/hr" scare tactic is a logical argument against $10/hr then you must have a PhD."

    OK, asshole, explain why a MW of what you want it OBJECTIVELY different from $350.
    If a larger MW is good, why a huge MW must be great.

  • kbolino||

    I see no appeal to fear.

    I see Sevo saying that if raising the MW has no consequence, then why not raise it to $350/hour?

    If the principle is valid, then the number is meaningless.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    You KNOW you're being intellectually dishonest, glibertarian.

    It's fucking obvious there is some truth to the principle if a law is passed mandating the minimum wage to be $13,000/second, nobody's gonna be employed.

    Where you're being a disingenuous little libertarian shit is when you argue that raising it even a tiny bit, like from $7.25 to $9.25, is going to empty out every McDonalds.

    Like a sucker you believe the business owner with fatty tears streaking down his fat fucking rich face is telling the truth when he says he simply can't afford to pay his employees any more. You guys are such goddamned rubes, it's amazing.

  • kbolino||

    Good God, all you have is projection and appeals to emotion.

    Business people don't care about their workers! But we should raise the MW a little bit and only get a few people fired! It probably won't be me, so I don't give a fuck!

  • Edwin||

    well, if you would calm down and pay attention, you would have seen that I'm clearly on the free-market side. I explicitly added the qualifier "if it's not raised too much" or something to that effect
    I just think we should use valid economic arguments when we make these arguments. The minimum wage one is one of the most obviously not-so-simple ones.
    On top of the fact that for small increases it's unlikely to increase unemployment, there is also the issue that the way some people see it maybe it's better NOT to let people be employed below a certain pay in a world of government help. Perhaps one could argue that it would be beter they not get trapped in a shit job, take the handouts, wait, and maybe study (school possibly being payed by more handouts, I was told at my community college that the fed gov is sponsoring people to become machinists as the demand for STEM people increases) until they can get in a better position

    Not saying I agree with those things, just saying they're arguments we're going to have to face

    Me? I don't think it matters one way or another. There are no jobs period because all industry is basically illegal now, and we're fucked as a country

  • concerned cynic||

    20 years ago, Professors Card and Krueger at Princeton collected data on fast food restaurants in the Pennsylvania and New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia. New Jersey has a state minimum wage higher than the Federal minimum; Pennsylvania does not. Over the time period of their study, New Jersey raised its minimum wage. Meanwhile, the minimum wage did not change in Pennsylvania. Card and Krueger wrote a book claiming that New Jersey fast food restaurants did not hire fewer workers than Pennsylvania ones.

    A great many academic economists around the USA did not accept Card and Krueger's data collection methods (telephone survey, talking to anyone willing to talk), or their methodology (Card and Krueger did not ask restaurants to reveal past sales and to estimate sales in the near future). Articles were written reanalysing Card and Krueger's data. Other studies collected related data in other cities. The results generally did not support Card & Krueger's findings. Hence these findings are no longer much cited in the academic literature on mimimum wages.

  • Sevo||

    So Card and Krueger tried to show that raising the price of labor did not reduce the sale of labor?

  • prolefeed||

    They also tried to show that correlation is causation.

    It was a twofer.

  • concerned cynic||

    Rather, from an alleged lack of correlation they inferred that minimum wage laws play no role in low wage employment.

    More specifically, they claimed that there was no correlation of changing fast food employment levels on each side of the Delaware River, with changes in New Jersey's minimum wage. They then concluded that minimum wages do not matter for low wage employment.

    The bad news is that Card and Krueger, especially Card, are considered brilliant first rate economists. The good news is that many less prestigious economists strongly disagreed with them. They won the debate because Card & Krueger's results are not longer cited.

  • concerned cynic||

    Right.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "The idea that the next worker and next worker adds less and less production is false for food service and retail..."

    "....that more production is more costly per item is also false, again, though, just in foodservice/retail."

    These are interesting claims. Care to offer any support other than blind assertion? It strikes me that food service would be an area where this would be particularly plausible. There's a fixed number of tables. A fixed amount of space in the kitchen. A limit to the number of servers you can put on the floor without them tripping over one another.

  • wwhorton||

    This is what I was thinking as well, although I have been reading a lot of Rothbard lately. Also, I've worked in restaurants and in retail. But yeah, you're still subject to diminishing returns as you add employees if you're not also increasing the other factors of production. And even when you're talking about employees, you have to differentiate between management/supervisors, cashiers, and cooks, even in situations like McDonald's et al where the process is largely automated, or at least standardized such that cross-training is easy and minimal.

  • Edwin||

    I really really doubt it. I've cooked a lot throughout my life, and what I've found if anything is that more people make the work go faster more than proportionally.
    I'm betting it's a very linear proportional scale. Each pair of hands can do x work at x rate, and that's it. The limiting factor would be the size of the kitchen. Honestly it's hard for me to see how it could be anything other than that

  • VicRattlehead||

    minimum wage always hurts those it proports to help the worse by employers shrinking hours and raising costs of end products making the un affordable perpetually unaffordable to the sloths whop wasted their youth partying and never got trained for a skill. just because youre a liberal arts major doesnt mean i should have to suffer the devaluation of my paycheck as an electrician because your worthless ass "works" at wally world likely doing nothing more than staring at a computer and operating it since the auto-checkouts haven't phased you out of existence yet. heres a hint, if i can build a machine to do your job at a fraction of the cost im hiring a technician to repair and maintian that machine when needed, but i am not hiring 1 new cashier to pay 10$ an hour to when an electrical technician only costs appx 800$ a day as needed. you have protested yourself out of a job, congratulations you proglodyte fools

  • Sevo||

    VicRattlehead|12.13.13 @ 12:09PM|#
    "minimum wage always hurts those it proports to help..."

    There's a knock-on effect that doesn't get a lot of ink:
    OK, broom-pusher goes from $5 to $10/hr. Broom-pusher's supervisor is not happy that her additional responsibilities which used to be worth twice the broom-pushers wages are now equal; franchise manager has to raise her pay to $20/hr.
    Franchise manager is now looking for another job until franchise owner decides that training a new manager is a pain, so manager now gets $40/hr.
    And of course, no prices are raised (*cough bullshit cough*), and per Edwin above, hiring goes through the roof, since new customers flock in to pay $6 for what used to cost $3!
    But, you see, a study says this isn't true, 'cause New Soviet Man!

  • Edwin||

    I never said anything of the sort, maybe you should calm down and read what I said and maybe stop assuming that everyone who doesn't swallow libertarian gospel is just a commie?

  • Tyger_purr||

    Employers will schedule employees to meet demand. Anything less is detrimental to your business.

    You can build a machine to do some people's jobs but you can't make customers like them or use them. I know many people who refuse to use self checkout.

    The minimum wage in 1968 was the equivalent of $10 per hour. Why is that labor worth less today?

  • creech||

    I was a teenager who couldn't find a minimum wage job in the sixties because the wage was too high. As the real minimum wage went down, tens of thousands of jobs were created at fast food and retail establishments - jobs that couldn't exist at the minimum wage level set in the 1960s.

  • Tyger_purr||

    As wages deminish, it becomes necessary for low wage workers to work more jobs. On paper there are "more jobs". In reality you have a deminishing quality of life.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:09PM|#
    "As wages deminish, it becomes necessary for low wage workers to work more jobs."

    As you "answer, it becomes obvious you need to find more brains.

  • Tyger_purr||

    As you engage in nothing but personal attacks it becomes clear I will not find them in your head.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:29PM|#
    "As you engage in nothing but personal attacks it becomes clear I will not find them in your head."

    The personals attacks are directed at an asshole who refuses to answer the questions.

  • kbolino||

    Only if:

    A. You must maintain your standard of living, and

    B. Prices remain high.

    Abolishing MW would definite negate (B), and right now your (A) comes at the expense of someone else's suffering (there's no free lunch).

  • kbolino||

    Employers will schedule employees to meet demand.

    And when they cannot afford to schedule them equal to demand, then what?

  • Tyger_purr||

    If you refuse to meet demand then demand will deminish.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 3:51PM|#
    "If you refuse to meet demand then demand will deminish."

    No, twit, the demand will go to where it is satisfied.

  • Tyger_purr||

    If you, as a company, refuse to meet demand than your demand will diminish as customers seeking your goods or services flee to companies willing to meet demand.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:33PM|#
    "If you, as a company, refuse to meet demand than your demand will diminish as customers seeking your goods or services flee to companies willing to meet demand."

    Yes, a wonderful reason to avoid a MW.
    Did you have a point, or just lefty bullshit?

  • kbolino||

    My refusal came about because of the gun you pointed at my head. Who is at fault?

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 1:33PM|#
    ..."You can build a machine to do some people's jobs but you can't make customers like them or use them."...
    Did you major in "Clap-trap"?
    You may be right, and they may simply stop buying meaning other jobs are now out the window.

  • Tyger_purr||

    ...or demand will transition to your competition.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 3:53PM|#
    "...or demand will transition to your competition."
    Yes, the one offering the same good cheaper.

  • Tyger_purr||

    Price is not the only factor influencing consumer behavior. See: Apple,iPhone,iPad, etc.

  • kbolino||

    Yet Apple's market share is dwarfed by its competitors. Obviously, while some people want premium, most people want cheaper.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:37PM|#
    "Price is not the only factor influencing consumer behavior. See: Apple,iPhone,iPad, etc."

    You are a lefty, correct? So you are incapable of reading correct?
    Let's try this again:
    "Yes, the one offering the same good cheaper."
    Do you see that "same good" asshole?

  • Sevo||

    "Why is that labor worth less today?"
    Because the market says it is. Is that clear?

  • Tyger_purr||

    Businesses that do not pay a living wage have fail and are being sustained by the government/taxpayer.

    It is an artificial market.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:04PM|#
    "Businesses that do not pay a living wage have fail and are being sustained by the government/taxpayer."
    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

    "It is an artificial market."
    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    shit.
    Now that you've offered a couple of bullshit opinions, if you'd like them to be considered as other than bullshit, let's see some solid evidence.

  • Tyger_purr||

    I see you are unable to refute my statement.

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 5:38PM|#
    "I see you are unable to refute my statement."

    Your assertion has no evidence, asshole.
    It is not anyone's job to prove a negative.

  • kbolino||

    As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the businesses with the largest MW workforces (retail, fast food) pay more in taxes than their employees collect in benefits. So apparently they are subsidizing the government, not the other way around.

    In any case, let's abolish the social safety net, so nobody's being subsidized, then see what happens. Are you in favor of that?

  • wwhorton||

    You can build a machine to do some people's jobs but you can't make customers like them or use them. I know many people who refuse to use self checkout.

    Really? Do you know many people outside of Oregon who refuse to pump their own gas?

  • kbolino||

    I know many people who refuse to use self checkout.

    Is there anywhere that passes the cost savings of self checkout directly on to the consumers who use it? Since the answer is generally no, your comparison is inapt.

  • OneOut||

    Free trade agreements with poorer countries and open borders to fill the jobs they couldn't move cheaper.

    That's it in a nutshell.

  • mtrueman||

    "minimum wage always hurts those it proports to help"

    On the other hand, those who oppose it most strongly will be least benefitted by it.

  • datcv||

    TANSTAAFL...

  • ||

    If gravity didn't exist, I would be totally cool with someone dropping a 10 ton anvil over my head. Or if I was like one those cartoons and couldn't die.

  • ArbutusJoe||

    41% of libertarians support an increase in the minimum wage?

    File that in the "See now, there's your problem...." bucket.

  • concerned cynic||

    A higher minimum wage discourages the creation of unskilled jobs in the future. It is effectively impossible to count the jobs that do not exist "but for" a rise in the minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage, and its occasional rise, is very seductive.

    Let me explain anecdotally why the minimum wage matters. In the French railroad system has a stop in a provincial French town, almost no train employees can be seen. You buy tickets from a computer kiosk. If you need assistance with baggage, none is available. I assume that there is a stationmaster on duty somewhere. The French minimum wage is so high that about 40% of French workers are paid the minimum wage. (French workers not on fixed term contracts enjoy a job security like that of tenured academics, and unrealistically generous pension plans.)

  • Sevo||

    There's many ways to game a 'study' to show that raising the MW doesn't cause a loss of jobs:
    1) Raise the MW to just about the low end of the market wages.
    2) Raise the MW in a rising labor market and the jobs level off, but no one 'loses' their job.
    3) Count those who now work less than they did as 'still having a job'.
    4) Count in an industry that's already had workers combed out by rising MW (your French example).
    Rinse and repeat. It's like the 'studies' that show gummint workers are not overpaid; we'll cherry pick data until we find a measure that proves it. In that case, it was pay for worthless degrees; gummint workers needed degrees to make as much as private workers absent a degree in victim studies! Hence, gummint workers are underemployed for their 'education'!

  • Tyger_purr||

    Do French minimum wage workers have to supplement their income with social services that prohibit the acquisition of assets or savings as the US food stamps program does?

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 1:38PM|#
    ..."have to supplement their income"...
    Cite missing.
    Oh, and let's be clear; prove anyone *has to* and further make damn sure it's not someone raising a family on MW.
    Let's see it, twit.

  • Tyger_purr||

    Do French minimum wage workers supplement their income with social services that prohibit the acquisition of assets or savings as the US food stamps program does?

  • Sevo||

    Tyger_purr|12.13.13 @ 4:11PM|#
    "Do French minimum wage workers supplement their income with social services that prohibit the acquisition of assets or savings as the US food stamps program does?"

    Tyger,
    Did you see the question above? Now, asshole, try to answer that.

  • kbolino||

    The French have higher unemployment and lower labor force participation, but I guess they can rest assured that if they had some income, they wouldn't need to supplement it. How lucky for them!

  • kbolino||

    If you can't eat on $1215/month then your tastes exceed your means.

  • wwhorton||

    You got me there, Tyger. Let's eliminate the food stamp program so that people won't be forced to support families on unskilled, less-than-entry-level jobs. If only there was some resource in this country that would provide education to people from an early age with the ultimate goal of providing them at least basic skills with which to obtain some sort of productive, self-supporting employment or further education...

  • mtrueman||

    "A higher minimum wage discourages the creation of unskilled jobs"

    That sounds like a positive. What is the attraction of policies designed to encourage the creation of unskilled jobs?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well since most unskilled jobs are lost to automation, any policy that would discourge that. Tax changes for capital goods purchases or depreciation would be one way. High tariffs would be another although not as impactful.

  • wwhorton||

    Hey, the world needs ditch-diggers, too.

  • mtrueman||

    "the world needs ditch-diggers"

    With emigration, the world's ditches can be dug by (ex)American unskilled workers. Perhaps the statue of liberty could have its inscription altered: We give you our tired poor huddled masses.

  • OneOut||

    To give unskilled people a way to feed themselves ?

  • Sevo||

    "To give unskilled people a way to feed themselves ?"

    Without begging or theft from others! What a great idea!

  • mtrueman||

    I'm not really comfortable with government concerning itself with the creation of any jobs, skilled or unskilled.

  • c5c5||

    This poll really really depressed me.

    Points I had confirmed:

    1. Most people concentrate on the (perceived) seen only and not the unseen. This is a default position.

    2. Despite facts given or strong positions implied, many people remain stubborn in their ideals.

    The most depressing from this article is this Quote: "In fact, self-described libertarians were the only political group in which a majority (53 percent) believes the government should not set a minimum wage."

    47% of Libertarians believe the government should set a minimum wage?????????????????????????????? '
    Is this a joke?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "47% of Libertarians believe the government should set a minimum wage?????????????????????????????? '
    Is this a joke?"

    Just remember, Bill Maher self-describes as a libertarian.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As does a large contingency of Beckheads.

  • AlmightyJB||

    To some degree it doesn't matter because minimum wage is not going that high. Usually they raise the legal minimum wage few years to around what the "natural" minimum wage employers have to pay to get applicants. Then they boast about how everyone would make a nickle a week without government and unions. It not just that the service industry doesn't want the prohibitive costs. They also dont want to see their productive skilled employees taking unskilled jobs because they're less responsibility.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Most intelligent people are not going to do that but certainly students and retirees might forgo a mid-level position for less stress. Unfortunately fir the unskilled you may draw some of those same people who currently choose to not work to those jobs removing those job oppottunies for the uneducated or unskilled.

  • DarrenM||

    Once again, Reason does not bother to mention that States can raise their minimum wage independently of the Federal government. What would poll results look like if this was a consideration? Would people be for raising the minimum wage in their own state or would they want to force other states to raise theirs, too?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Remember, Communism doesn't work unless everybody does it. *progtard

  • burtacuf126||

    if you need a job try this site JOBS61 (dot)¢øm. Dan does it at home and makes $29.93 hourly just sitting and typing stuff all day...No experience needed too

  • SandyVGoodwin||

    my friend's step-aunt makes $73 hourly on the computer. She has been out of work for 9 months but last month her check was $20765 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this http://WWW.CASH46.COM

  • SandyVGoodwin||

    just before I saw the paycheck which was of $9192, I didn't believe ...that...my mom in-law was like really bringing home money in their spare time from there new laptop.. there brothers friend had bean doing this 4 only about nine months and just repayed the debts on their cottage and purchased a great Aston Martin DB5. browse this site
    http://WWW.CASH46.COM

  • RJack||

    I own a small business. It will affect employment. I guess that solves it.

  • RJack||

    I have got to go back to school. I must have been sleeping through my economic classes. Buy a small business and see how that would work for you.

  • HTuttle||

    75% of those polled favored eating lemons but only if it doesn't make your lips pucker.

  • LIFE.time.opertunity||

  • Sugarsail||

    The problem with minimum wage hikes isn't a loss in jobs, it's the immediate raise in prices (causes real inflation) of all goods and services that require minimum wage work to get done, which is most things that average people buy.

    That's why minimum wage hikes have never solved poverty in the past, because it just drives up the cost of living immediately.

  • Larrybud||

    Amazing that people ignore one of the basic tenants of economics. When you raise the price of something, in this case, labor, the demand to buy it goes down.

  • gagster||

    "Among Republicans making less than $60,000 a year 63 percent support raising the minimum wage and 43 percent oppose."

    And, I assume, negative six percent are undecided?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement