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.
Seniors are the biggest loser of minimum wage hikes. Many of them live entirely off of Social Security and are struggling to pay the bills. They can't afford prices going up at WalMart. This is why I am against a federal minimum wage increase.
I dont know of anyone who supports a much higher minimum wage who is against expanding social security by lifting the cap on income subject to SS tax. We should lift all boats, not pit desperate workers against struggling seniors. Thats what the ruling class wants us to do.
Just a few examples. And it's always fast-food workers as the example.
Yes, they use fast food workers as the example and I believe it is strategically unwise, but it refers to $15 minimum wage for all workers. Not $15 wage for fast food workers and $7.25 for others.
Why don't you show us the information then? And what is "no BIG employment loss" (emphasis mine). Does that mean there was an employment loss?
No. The unemployment rate in 1949 before the 88% increase was 6.6%. A year after the near doubling of the minimum wage was introduced, the unemployment rate was 4.3%. A year and two after that, it was 3.1% and 2.7%.
We see the same time and time again. The doom and gloom doesnt materialize.
Here is a study of price increases in Seattle.
Quote:
Early analysis of Seattle’s $15 wage law: Effect on prices minimal one year after implementation:
I do agree that it is strategically unwise to constantly use fast food workers as a symbol for this minimum wage hike because a lot of people feel this type of job is something they cant relate to at all. But fast food workers have been at the forefront, so it is what it is.
Regarding huge price increases as a result of minimum wage increases, why dont they materialize? Did it lead to disaster in 1950? No it didnt. But the donor class told people it would. Same in the late 60s. What it does lead to is increased demand and more costumers as low to middle income people who spend all their money in America (not abroad) have more money in their pocket, and increased workplace efficiency and lower turnover (the costs for businesses of high turnover is substantial).
What you're missing with your analogy is how profit was calculated, what was tolerable with respect to margins and worker performance and what was expected from people then to now.
Back then business didn't watch profit down to the .0000001% and didn't calculate worker performance down to .0000000001 of their production value to the company. They didn't look at cutting 1/10th of a penny to increase profits by 1/10th of a percent at the cost of employees. They didn't ask 1 employee to do the job of 5 just to increase profit margins by .005%. It was a different time back then, when at least to some extent people meant more than a penny or two. Hence there were retirement,healthcare and bonuses in effect and people could expect to work at the same job/company until they grew old or died.
Nowadays that is NOT the case. You can expect to be tossed to the curb if it means exceeding a profit projection by <.01%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
I personally think it would be OK for health care costs to rise if it was because the lowest paid are getting more. But yes, that would cause health care costs to go up.
Only because it's your ox being gored. If you were not somehow attached to the healthcare business and only had to pay for it I'd bet the tune would be different as it is with everyone else.
No. The unemployment rate in 1949 before the 88% increase was 6.6%. A year after the near doubling of the minimum wage was introduced, the unemployment rate was 4.3%. A year and two after that, it was 3.1% and 2.7%.
We see the same time and time again. The doom and gloom doesnt materialize.
Here is a study of price increases in Seattle.
But how many businesses have or are planning on closing their doors? I believe there's a list floating around here on C-D and it's NOT insignificant.
What you're missing with your analogy is how profit was calculated
What you are missing is of course the unions. Strong unions is always desirable for workers. I do think that it is instructive to look at past history to figure out what the consequences would be though. We cant just assume that the sky will fall when it has never done so in the past with minimum wage increases. The Department of Labor has a nice website for people where some of those points are addressed: https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
What you are missing is of course the unions. Strong unions is always desirable for workers. I do think that it is instructive to look at past history to figure out what the consequences would be though. We cant just assume that the sky will fall when it has never done so in the past with minimum wage increases. The Department of Labor has a nice website for people where some of those points are addressed: https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
Unions only exist (now) to keep the incompetent/lazy employed, PERIOD. It's not the old days, back when unions were first instituted.
They've morphed into more of a problem/parasite than a solution.
Unions only exist (now) to keep the incompetent/lazy employed, PERIOD. It's not the old days, back when unions were first instituted.
They've morphed into more of a problem/parasite than a solution.
Regardless of what you think of the unions, and research shows that wages and benefits are much stronger in countries with strong unions, they largely created the large middle class in America. Thats why there has been such relentless attacks on unions for the past 40 years by the ruling donor class. The decline of unions go hand in hand with skyrocketing inequality and the fall of the middle class. Countries with weak or no unions have a huge problem with inequality, poverty and low wages. There is no need for any minimum wage in countries with strong unions.
These outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most minimum wage increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses.
All I hear about is minimum wage increases. I don't think you can have that conversation until you fix healthcare, social security, and illegal immigration. If minimum wage went up today without fixing those other 3, wouldn't it put pressure on businesses in sanctuary cities to hire illegals and pay them far less than minimum wage? I would love to see minimum wage go up, but you have to fix the other 3 first. By fixing SS, I mean giving seniors more.
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.
