Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Workers on the margin would be hurt, like teens. Adult workers with children might be hurt when increased wages are offset by reductions in government assistance. Childless adult workers who keep their jobs and hours might be better off.
And those with a skill set worth less than the min wage will be unemployed.
Why gradual? If it helps so many as is claimed, why wait?
There are a couple conservative radio talk show hosts who ask the same sarcastic question. If it's good for the economy, why not raise it all at once?
It might or might not be good for the economy, as the wages will almost all be spent quickly, recirculating and multiplying in the local economy. But the costs will be concentrated on the employers, who often will not see the increased costs returned to them in the form of increased sales, e.g. fast food workers will not be spending their raises where they work.
So an abrupt jump in minimum wage would be an uncompensated cost shock to some employers, whether or not it is good for the economy overall.
There are a couple conservative radio talk show hosts who ask the same sarcastic question. If it's good for the economy, why not raise it all at once?
It might or might not be good for the economy, as the wages will almost all be spent quickly, recirculating and multiplying in the local economy. But the costs will be concentrated on the employers, who often will not see the increased costs returned to them in the form of increased sales, e.g. fast food workers will not be spending their raises where they work.
So an abrupt jump in minimum wage would be an uncompensated cost shock to some employers, whether or not it is good for the economy overall.
It isn't a sarcastic question.
If it will help lift people out of poverty, why so little and why wait?
Stop blaming everyone else, Democrats could do whatever they wanted in 2008 to 2010, so why did Obama let wealth inequality get even worse?
And most of the ones listed would do nothing to solve wealth inequality. But if those were the solution, how come Obama didn't implement it when he could?
Employers and industry groups (like the National Restaurant Association) have lobbyists and campaign dollars. Campaign dollars speak much louder to politicians than minimum wage workers ever could.
It isn't a sarcastic question.
If it will help lift people out of poverty, why so little and why wait?
It doesn't lift people out of poverty due to other government policies (e.g. parents would get reduced government assistance if their earnings increase) and the government definition of poverty (e.g. childless adults earning minimum wage are defined as not poor at approx 30 hours of work per week).
You have not addressed my point.
If min. Wage is 15 and your skills are worth 10, it wont matter.
??? Applicant walks in, employer cannot quantify on the spot the value of applicant's labor. Some hires work out better than others but min wage employers don't know for sure in advance.
No one really thinks the minimum wage is going to go up to $15.00/hr. It's just a negotiating ploy. $10-11/hr would be reasonable, though. Raising the minimum wage is a logical first step in addressing the exploding wealth gap in this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
