Posted on 01/20/2014 9:14:16 AM PST by jazusamo
Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among those liberals who argue as if rent control laws actually control rents and gun control laws actually control guns.
It does no good to point out to them that the two American cities where rent control laws have existed longest and strongest — New York and San Francisco — are also the two cities with the highest average rents.
Nor does it make a dent on them when you point out evidence, from both sides of the Atlantic, that tightening gun control laws does not reduce gun crimes, including murder. It is not uncommon for gun crimes to rise when gun control laws are tightened. Apparently armed criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Minimum wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum wage laws create unemployment, especially among the younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
When you are unemployed, your wages are zero, regardless of what the minimum wage law specifies.
Having followed the controversies over minimum wage laws for more than half a century, I am always amazed at how many ways there are to evade the obvious.
A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum wage advocate.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
If the Minimum Wage is increased there will be job losses. Job losses create dependent people and thus increase the base of voters that will vote democrat.
Perhaps Obama does know what he is doing in relationship to the Minimum Wage.
There’s no doubt he and his handlers are trying to destroy us.
Its Cloward-Piven and right on target!
Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum wage increase — and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors.
Someone once said, “The devil is in the details."
The other problem is that most starter jobs are created by small local businesses and they are the least likely to survive a minimum wage hike.
If this were true it would mean one third would fire workers. If one third of all minimum wage workers lost their job that would be a huge number. Not to mention the other side of the coin, if a business can afford to raise the minimum wage they pay by as much as the libs want, the jobs would attract far more qualified people. Looks to me like all or nearly all the current employees would be out of a job either way.
I think they are trying to say that one third of all employers who employ minimum wage workers would fire some of those minimum wage workers.
Two thirds may have said that for a poll but I don’t believe it for a minute.
A few years ago the liberal city council of Eugene, OR was considering passing a “living wage” in the city and called for input from the community.
At the council meeting there was standing room only and many business owners told them if they passed it they’d move their businesses elsewhere.
That was the end of the proposed living wage for Eugene.
You are right, long day for me...that would still be a lot of people losing jobs.
That is true, unless there is easy welfare or unemployment benefits of extended duration. Then, the minimum wage has to bid against the government idleness wage.
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.