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.
New business, products and innovation will be severally decreased. Home ownership would likely dry up too due to the inability of rich developers to invest in building houses.
Get real. Net income after expenses. A top marginal tax rate of 90% didn't shut down our economy back when we had it. In fact it was growing far stronger then than now.
Care to support this absurd assumption. Seems you are back to playing liberal tool with stupidity such as this.
I will give a whack at supporting it. If they could've outsourced it they would've.
You probably wont accept this one but the other people reading this thread most likely will.
If you wanted to enact a minimum wage that high (and I don't) then you would need to simply print a bunch of money to hand to everyone to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
They would fail because they are no longer getting an indirect government subsidy to stay in business.
My guess you are opposed to government subsidies? I think our conversation is over it appears you have some misinformed conjecture about the broken window fallacy not applying to wages.
I have no income. I haven't had any income for many years. I collect no entitlements from the government. I expect to earn my money.
My sister has the same disability that I do. She gets a check from the government. I'm OK with her getting a check. But if you are going to put her to work at anything like full time then you should be paying enough for her to not need a check. If you don't then you are getting a government subsidy just like she is.
If you are in it for the money then you shouldn't be being subsidized by the government. Directly or indirectly.
I have no income. I haven't had any income for many years. I collect no entitlements from the government. I expect to earn my money.
My sister has the same disability that I do. She gets a check from the government. I'm OK with her getting a check. But if you are going to put her to work at anything like full time then you should be paying enough for her to not need a check. If you don't then you are getting a government subsidy just like she is.
If you are in it for the money then you shouldn't be being subsidized by the government. Directly or indirectly.
Please answer the question. I think you are saying you are opposed to a government subsidy in any fashion. Is this true?
Dude, you've yet to explain why its practical to keep wages in line with inflation. I've read through this entire thread and its not here.
Why is it practical to keep wages inline with inflation.
1. to prevent large scale economic disruption. For example thee Great depression.
2. to promote general prosperity.
3. to keep large parts of the population from dying of starvation.
4. to maintain social stability.
For these four reasons it is probably practical to have the bottom's wages lead inflation.
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.