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.
In theory, there is no need for any inflation to occur at all. You are merely affecting the shares of return on the production of GDP. There are just four...
GDP = W + R + I + P
W = Wages, which are the return to labor. R = Rent and I = Interest, each of which is a return to capital. P = Profits, which is the return to entrepreneurship.
Introducing a living wage would require that one of two things occur. First, relative wage rates could change, such that the total for W remained constant, while some income earned by high-wage workers was diverted to low-wage workers in order that they could earn a living wage. Second, relative wage rates could remain constant, while the total for W increased so as to bring low-wage workers up to a living wage. This would require one or more of R, I, and P to be reduced.
In the real world, the labor share of GDP (namely, W) has been declining since Bush took office, this after rising over the latter half of President Clinton's term. A substantial part of the recent decrease in W has gone over to P. There has been little if any inflation caused by this. The process could be reversed with the same effect.
Are you still at it, Saganista? This is pure unadulterated garbage. There is no such formula. You need to read some Thomas Sowell (I suggest "Economis 101", I think that's the title. Sowell will set you straight. Thomas Sowell is brilliant.
It makes no difference if my wage goes up if everything I need in life goes up even higher. Then I'm just back where I started and nothing has been accomplished.
I learned this lesson the hard way. Back in the late 90's I was a teenager working at McDonald's, and I was excited to learn I would be getting a 50 cent raise because of the federal minimum wage hike. I was excited to see a bigger number on my paycheck, but within a month, the prices of almost everything increased by about the same percentage. Thus, the hike only caused the value of the dollar to decline, i.e. inflation.
Alas, prosperity cannot be magically created by political decree.
I think what you are getting at is that is the wages of a fast food employee were to rise to 100% more than they make then the expenses of the restaurant will go up tremendously, in turn the price of those goods will follow suit. likely the $2.00 burger will be upwards of $4.50.
then you will see a general increase in other items and at some point their increased buying power will be eliminated. net result... no more money as inflation ate it up. now when you have people on fixed incomes they will be pushed deeper towards poverty as their incomes won't increase but the inflation will affect them.
One thing that this thread hasn't really dealt with, surprisingly, is exactly what constitutes a living wage. The concept of such a wage is quite ambiguous, with different organizations using different means of determining what it should be. Some estimates actually run quite low; indeed, some states and municipalities already have minimum wages (or soon will) which would qualify as living wages under most definitions, with little in the way of negative repercussions.
A living wage would not necessarily be bad for the economy, as long as legislation is properly structured. The increase in minimum wage could be offset with some combination of tax cuts to businesses, subsidies, caps on CEO pay, increased government assistance for healthcare (thus reducing the burden currently placed on employers), etc. Certain restrictions could also be placed on a living wage, for example not requiring it for teenage workers. Other novel ways of structuring the legislation may be found, as well.
A few other points are worth mentioning. First, a true living wage would likely need to vary across regions; it's far more expensive to live in New York City than rural Illinois. Secondly, the federal minimum wage (and most state minimum wages) have failed to keep pace with inflation; the minimum wage didn't hurt the economy when first implemented nor when raised, when adjusted for inflation the minimum wage has been much higher without significant negative effects (and with many positive effects). Finally, most developed countries have, often significantly, higher minimum wages than the US. The countries have not suffered as a result and many also, according to the Human Development Index, have better standards of living than the US. Just some things to consider...
Are you still at it, Saganista? This is pure unadulterated garbage. There is no such formula. You need to read some Thomas Sowell (I suggest "Economis 101", I think that's the title. Sowell will set you straight. Thomas Sowell is brilliant.
As you've apparently never read Page-1 of classical economic theory, go google the terms and see what comes up. You could start here, though it would still leave you a long way to go.
Sowell meanwhile turns out some quite decent work and a lot of pure tripe. Most people who are impressed by him are simply too easily impressed.
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.
