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.
But increasing the minimum wage means that new growth in the economy happens above it. The new jobs added will pay more. Add enough new jobs and we are all better off.
No, we are not all better off.
Minimum wage workers who remain employed are better off because of the direct subsidy received that they did not earn.
Minimum wage workers who lose their jobs are not better off.
Employers of minimum wage workers are worse off because of the tax increase (which, instead of going to Washington DC and then to the minimum wage employee goes directly from the employer to the employee).
Total GDP is lower than it otherwise would be.
GDP per capita is lower than it otherwise would be.
Minimum wage workers who remain employed are better off because of the direct subsidy received that they did not earn.
Minimum wage workers who lose their jobs are not better off.
Employers of minimum wage workers are worse off because of the tax increase (which, instead of going to Washington DC and then to the minimum wage employee goes directly from the employer to the employee).
Total GDP is lower than it otherwise would be.
GDP per capita is lower than it otherwise would be.
A society cannot tax its way to prosperity.
Yes true. It's really a lose ,lose.
It's not good for minimum wage employees because it's not good for the owners of 'minimum wage reliant businesses'
Also what I am reading , from actual business owners is that they are going to require more SKILLS of minimum wage workers and more responsibilities.
So basically less people will be qualified to work in minimum wage positions than in the past and they also are going to be required to work harder. Furthermore after an increase in taxe and the cost of EVERYTHING going up for them, the increase is going to be nominal.
In San Francisco they are even penalizing businesses that have over 100 employees by charging them an extra amount per hour towards their employees health care!
" In addition, under a 2006 law aimed at providing health care to everyone in the city, SF businesses with 100 or more employees, like Karp’s, are required to pay at least $2.53 an hour toward each worker’s health care. Taken together, the health care and minimum wage laws mean Karp must pay $14.78 an hour this year, which will climb to at least $17.53 in July of 2018 (the health care payment is pegged to health costs across the state, which will surely rise)." Forbes Welcome
So many businesses with 100 employees in SF are already basically paying a wage of $15 hr today because of this health care thing.
As mentioned in the article even having 100 employees doesn't mean you are making millions.
" Last year, profits were 3% to 4% of sales, "
Of course when they hear about this guy that has been running this business for decades , the pro $15hr crowd calls him an idiot and a bad businessman
Despite that he calls himself a bleeding liberal and has paid his employees ABOVE minimum wage..
Problem on 3-4% profit is there is only so much left to take...
The bottom has been paying the inflation tax and the top has gotten a free ride from inflation.
Nope. Inflation is just one form of a tax. No one gets a free ride from inflation. Inflation, as with all taxes, is a transfer in spending power from the private sector to the federal government.
Speaking of the middle class...if minimum wage workers make $15hr, and costs go up (which they will) that's less money out of their pocket.
Should there also be a law to raise the wages of "middle class workers" too?
Where's their increase?...
Many public sector unions are in favor of an increase in the minimum wage even though they might have zero minimum wage union members. Why? They already have plans to use the MW increase as leverage to bargain for higher wages for their (relatively) more skilled employees of the middle-class variety.
It's amazing how much we argue about minimum wage. The issues surrounding MW are symptoms, not illnesses.
The reason we need it is because 1) certain parts of the country have dysfunctional housing markets...*cough* CALIFORNIA and 2) we have inexorable inflation.
If we fixed those two problems, minimum wage would be irrelevant. In the absence of dealing with those problems, minimum wage is one of the few tools government has to affect wages in an inflationary environment.
Many public sector unions are in favor of an increase in the minimum wage even though they might have zero minimum wage union members. Why? They already have plans to use the MW increase as leverage to bargain for higher wages for their (relatively) more skilled employees of the middle-class variety.
It will happen.
Ironically the unions are fighting to be exempt from paying the minimum wage though
It seems that unions should be celebrating this supposed win for workers – yet union leaders are currently seeking an exemption to the $15-an-hour minimum wage for union members.
They were FOR the minimum wage BEFORE they were against it.
Minimum wage workers who remain employed are better off because of the direct subsidy received that they did not earn.
Minimum wage workers who lose their jobs are not better off.
Employers of minimum wage workers are worse off because of the tax increase (which, instead of going to Washington DC and then to the minimum wage employee goes directly from the employer to the employee).
Total GDP is lower than it otherwise would be.
GDP per capita is lower than it otherwise would be.
A society cannot tax its way to prosperity.
How about we just calculate the higher wages that would result from deporting ALL illegals, compensate legal workers accordingly, and leave the minimum wage where it is now?
i.e. why not give low-wage workers the wages they earned but did not receive because illegal immigration depressed their wages?
It's amazing how much we argue about minimum wage. The issues surrounding MW are symptoms, not illnesses.
The reason we need it is because 1) certain parts of the country have dysfunctional housing markets...*cough* CALIFORNIA and 2) we have inexorable inflation.
If we fixed those two problems, minimum wage would be irrelevant. In the absence of dealing with those problems, minimum wage is one of the few tools government has to affect wages in an inflationary environment.
Ah, but this appears to be another "third rail" which is political suicide to mess with. Rent-seeking greedy incumbent homeowners CHOOSE to maintain policies which enable dysfunctional housing markets because said homeowners are beneficiaries of the dysfunction. These homeowners do not want a free housing market in their neighborhood.
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.
