I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is the amount of work that they do is worth more then the minimum wage.


If you are really interested in the structure.

Basically my understanding of how a movie theater operates is that after they have the building, equipment, etc. They strike a deal with the movie company for a percentage of the profits. This is usually somewhere in the range of 10-25% depending on the movie. This is a very minimal profit for the movie theater.

Where the company makes the bulk of the profits is from overcharging for popcorn, soda, candy, etc. You are basically buying a large bucket of popcorn for $4.50 that really costs pennies for the theater.

I don't know what this proves one way or the other, using Kowboy's perplexing calculus, but I worked for a small theater that paid decently when I was a kid. Worked there quite a while.

Eventually, I applied to a much nicer theater. Larger, too. I wanted to run the projectors cuz it was super fun and I learned how to do it at the other place. Well, this place with 4 times as many screens only had one employee for that position, and they paid about 2 bucks per hour less than the place I was working. I was quite shocked to learn of the extra duties and lower income.

That's my experience, and I don't know what it means, even outside any maths.

I would guess it means that the small theater was still making a profit margin even though it payed you more.

I imagine the larger company made even more money off you then the smaller one did.

I would take that to mean that you were worth an awful lot more then you were getting paid at the second place.

Oh, I didn't take the job at the second place. The owner was a dick.

Jobs leave America to go to China because the labor is cheaper. By saying that minimum wage is bad because of this reason Sterling is basically arguing that we should be able to exploit our workers like they do in China.

I really don't think that is a great argument for a successful society in America.

oh good. I would hope not.

Thanks Kowboys, My perception of the movie theater labor is that the worker benefits more than the wage he is paid also. I would guess that it is most of the workers first job and being successful in that job shows potential future employers that you are trustworthy and understand the value of hard work. That experience is quite valuable.

Lawl.

That person you are looking to remove from office is Ron Paul.

So are we going to get a budget deal this year? The house passed a budget and back in the day (i.e. before Obama) the Senate would pass a budget (51 votes required) and it would go to reconciliation. Is that too much to ask of the Democrats?

"worth" is a weird word to use here.

Almost tautologically, if it is not a net benefit to hire the worker at that wage, then they simply won't be hired. (That's a coherent argument against minimum wage laws, by the way.) Considering that the alternative of not hiring the worker exists, a rational business can't do worse by having the option to hire at minimum wage.

The fact that those positions might, in the absence of minimum wage laws, be filled more cheaply is one of the reasons people support minimum wage laws.

You could make this argument for every job. I don't really see why that matters to anything, though.

Seems relevant to me when you are talking about the relative value of minimum wage jobs. Although every job experience builds your skillset in the job market it seems easy to rationalize employers who hire a lot of first timers that this benefit is greater than those who hire more proven workers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFXPxpMRGEU

Obama.

OK. I understand one point you are making (people benefit from having a job) but I still don't see the relevance.

More specifically, if this is an argument against minimum wage laws, I'm not sure that I can distinguish it from the earlier "deadweight loss" criticism: that employers have opportunities for which they would be willing to hire only for less than minimum wage.

Maybe you're not trying to say anything else though...

How is that a coherent argument against minimum wage laws (sarcasm?)? All that argument says is that businesses won't hire people at a price that doesn't profit them. Minimum wage laws aren't a protection for businesses.

The argument I am alluding to is that businesses won't hire workers because the value that the worker adds would not justify the minimum wage, even if such an interaction was mutually beneficial. The minimum wage then causes a deadweight loss in the market for labor.

I'm sure you can imagine this actually causing problems if the minimum wage was set absurdly high, for example.

So what happens if the minimum wage is set just high enough that say teenagers who don't have to support even themselves, people with scams (using the job to make more money) or people being scammed (working dirt cheap for the promise of more down the road) are the only ones who might be interested? IE - fields rot in poor rural areas of GA because no legal worker is even going to do that job for min. wage.

Obviously there is some net drag on the economy of teenagers having a tougher time finding a job and businesses that traditionally hire lots of teenagers like fast food have to raise prices some. But is that really such a huge negative effect when weighed against the benefits of keeping wage scammieness out of the job market and not forcing adults to compete with teenagers for below living wage jobs (although most would argue even the current min. wage isn't livable)?

Just rambling here but I fail to see a big economic impact of min. wage jobs either way except to keep Cambodia-style workers leveraging their job into scams and 1920s style workers getting scammed with the promise of big pay down the road.

I'm not sure that I followed that. But I'm not trying to make an argument against minimum wage laws, either. I think they can be good policy.

I'm just trying to establish a baseline for making sensible arguments in either direction, despite the apparent futility of this endeavor.

Me too. I'm trying to establish some positives that don't often get discussed. And point out that the economic negatives of having a min. wage that's actually below living wage for most people seem like they should be pretty minor.

Everything that's going to happen between now and Nov., whatever. President Obama is a brilliant politician whose vision for the united states in largely aligned with mine. Romney doesn't have a chance, Santorum doesn't have a chance. The president has not yet begun to fight.

Seriously, he's at least 2 levels ahead of everyone.

2010 is calling for the brilliance that led to the worst repudiation of a siting President in 68 years.

look up the difference between battle and war

I'm seeing every player in this drama as someone I've played poker with before.

I agree with you that the President sees the relevant battle as him getting reelected. You have set the bar for brilliance pretty low imo but if he can regain Congress this year you would have a much stronger argument.

That about says it for his presidency....you think maybe he wouldve learned a lesson after 2010 AND seeing how Clinton (when he suffered bad midterms also) moved to the middle. But nah....he's much too smart for us. He knows whats best for all of us even when more than 1/2 the people disagree with him.

No one has a chance?? You think 5 or 6 point leads either way now means anything? Wait until the heads up debating goes on. You obama lovers act like he's done a good job..lol..he shot us in the foot in the first 3+ yrs. If he gets another term, he'll shoot us in the head. It'll be over.

Just reference the 2010 midterms again before you say anyone is 2 levels ahead of anyone.

A question for the obama lover geniuses on here:

Between Obama and Romney...

Who gives us the better chance for a much more robust economy/job creation?

If you think its Obama..then heres most people's job for the next 4 yrs. You wont need your car anymore or a job. All you need to do is walk back and forth to your mailbox once a month (heck..maybe even twice a month).