Posted on 11/14/2016 1:52:45 PM PST by The Revolutionary Act
The first thing to understand about the minimum wage is that it is a classic case of understandable emotionalism and frustration versus concrete data and economic reality. So the clearest explanation is a pros-and-cons listing.
On the pros side of increasing the minimum wage, people who are making it and who keep their jobs will make more money. Their increased earnings improve their purchasing power.
The cons side is a little lengthier.
Sharp increases in the minimum wage reduces the number of entry-level jobs
This, in turn, reduces the opportunity for unskilled workers to start getting experience. This is common sense. You cannot climb a ladder without stepping on the first rung. Minimum wage increases eliminates that first-rung opportunity for a certain number of mostly young or unskilled workers by making automation more affordable. It falls under the law of unintended consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at therevolutionaryact.com ...
Until the borders are closed I am in favor of the minimum wage.
A few months ago, I read a story about the wage hikes in areas of California.
The raise was enough so some would not be eligible for various public assistance programs, and would ask their employer to reduce their hours so they could fall below a certain earning threshold to qualify assistance programs.
Can anyone confirm having heard/read such a story?
Leftism: solving poverty by making it illegal.
This whole minimum wage canard makes sense when you realize the true intent behind it: increasing the unionization of service and restaurant workers. Private sectors unions are rightfully losing their relevance. This is a desperate attempt to lock in a new generation of suckers under the “union label”.
According to some friends the real problem is that we need to get the minimum wage up to around $25 an hour.
They just don’t get cause and effect....
to support more welfare recipients ...
Even if there were zero dis-employment effects, minimum-wage laws are ineffective at reducing poverty for two reasons:
1. The vast majority of minimum-wage workers aren’t poor.
2. The vast majority of poor people don’t work.
Yes, another state documented the problem of salary increase vs entitlement loss. Upshot is there’s a peak “earned + welfare” income point at $12/hr wages, after which total income plummets. At about $16/hr, welfare benefits dry up fast, and total combined income doesn’t recover until about $36/hr.
That makes the “$15/hr minimum wage” cry interesting: they don’t ask for more because beneficiaries would fast become keenly aware of the huge _loss_ of total income above that, witnessing the lie of minimum wage.
Yes, I’ve also heard of workers wanting lowered hours to ensure they didn’t exceed some limit where they’d lose benefits. In fact, IIRC, Starbucks & Walmart rely on that - they don’t hire people “full time” precisely because then the business would be on the hook for assorted coverage, but “part time” workers get it from the gov’t.
Pesky facts.
TEN DOLLARS. Which the now $15/hour workers are now subjected to, along with the thousands of other price increases throughout the store.
Welcome to your new prosperity, stupid.
and because there is more money available for ordinary things like groceries, rent etc, prices go up by a commensurate amount leaving poor people even further behind so that $15 Hr wage buys the same as the old $10 wage.
But on the other hand a higher minimum wage means they will be more likely to hire people who speak English. Those low wage jobs that American won’t do ought to be eliminated as much as possible.
I agree. The huge surplus of labor has kept wages artificially low. Also our welfare state subsidizes low paying businesses by allowing people to work at jobs they otherwise couldn’t afford to live on. Without it they would have to pay people enough to live on, or they wouldn’t fill positions, other than maybe with teenagers. That’s why Chamber of Commerce Republicans love both amnesty and welfare.
Very few people are actually on minimum wage, but many are making slightly higher, far less than 15 dollars an hour. And many of those are putting food on the table. And of course they get government benefits to make it possible to keep working at low wages. So the fact that few actually make the minimum isn’t all that relevant.
It is a big problem with welfare. Take the example of Obamacare. Go over 250% FPL you lose cost sharing subsidies. Go over 400% FPL you lose premium subsidies. If one is older, 5 digits come into play.
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.