Posted on 02/11/2021 12:34:59 PM PST by Brian Griffin
They’ll be out of work too, if they are looking for jobs that are just below the new higher minimum wage. Your arguments make no sense.
Low wage employment is hopefully transitional.
If the total number of unskilled jobs goes down by say 4%, but the more important rate of personal upward transition goes up by 8%, then we have a winning policy.
By eliminating the ability of cheapskate employers to bottom fish, we make the ability to get on (and then climb) the employment ladder much easier.
If Mom and Pop don’t went to pay their grunts the federal min, then they can close up shop and get real jobs. Maybe learn to code.
” if you don’t understand how a minimum wage creates unemployment”
If Change B increases the income of 10 million households by 10% but costs 50,000 jobs, would you implement Change B?
The only purpose of legal immigration is to increase the labor force and lower prevailing wage. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Da, Comrade. You should fit in very nicely with the Biden Administration—you should apply for a job with them as an economist.
“Cheapskate employers?” Sure, they’re cheapskates—that must be it. All employers are identical, nationwide, and their business all have identical cost structures. All employees nationwide are identical too, with identical skillsets and ambitions.
Some jobs are not worth $15/hour, and the employers who can’t afford to pay it will either pay them under the table for less, or let them go.
Fixed it.
You’re a regular Hillary Clinton—you just *loves* you some social engineering through taxation. Why do you feel it’s your right to demand that those 50k people lose their jobs?
Under the table is illegal and option B who will do the work? Their competitors that WILL pay the new minimum?
I should add that my scheme has strong wage cost predictability, which itself is important in job creation.
As I suspected, you’ve never run a business. Every cost is borne by the customer. If prices cannot be increased sufficiently to cover costs, while preserving profits, then the businesses will either find a way around (under the table and illegal), or possibly automate. I don’t know why you Leftists always think there’s a deep well of limitless money from customers to draw from. Have you never heard of price elasticity?
“Why do you feel it’s your right to demand that those 50k people lose their jobs?”
In posting my proposal I’m asking for your politically marketable input to avoid such job loss.
When I went off to college, I learned about the Department of Political Economy. Note the adjective.
If you really believe this to be true, then YOU are the cheapskate. Why are you stopping at $15/hour? If raising the minimum wage has never had an effect on employment, then make it $50/hour, or even $100/hour. Imagine how nice that will be!
If you don’t want to make it $50 or $100 per hour, explain why not?
There should be NO federal minimum wage law.
Let the market decide.
Let the employee add value to his place of employment, and let the employer pay based on value added.
PERIOD
Why does the federal government have to be involved in every freakin’ facet of American life???
Damn it.
My input is that you should throw your proposal in the trash bin. No amount of political spin will prevent job loss if it were to be implemented.
You want a government subsidized work force so who is the leftist again? Jeff Bezos is that really you?
Well I do know that a $15.00/hr min wage would push the cost of a McD’s 1/4 pounder to $50 maybe $60 per burger. Maybe a $100!!!
Why not let the heroic “Moms and Pops” that don’t like the min wage get real jobs, maybe learn to code?
Probably would, yes. So what conclusion do you draw about the minimum wage from that, Professor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.