Yes. It’s why they didn’t even ask for funding for their big beautiful wall for the past 2 years they had total budgetary control in congress and the presidency.
Entry level workers with entry level skills have families. Either the employer pays them enough to support their families, or tax payers do. Currently, tax payers do.
Is that why republicans did exactly nothing about it when they had total budgetary control of Congress and the presidency from Jan 2017-Jan 2019?
Then there's the choice they made, which was a mistake. If we stop supporting them, perhaps they'll stop doing it.
We aren’t going to stop doing it. You will never have enough political support to cut those programs. They are in place precisely because employers do not pay a wage comparable to the labor they are receiving. Since employers aren’t, tax payers will. Those are the 2 choices. Employer pays orntax payer does.
Wrong. If you have minimum skills you get minimum pay, so employers are paying a wage comparable to the labor they are receiving. Anyone can put coffee in a cup or sweep a floor. As to the rest of what you said, that's merely your opinion and desire to maintain the status quo. Growing welfare states are unsustainable, and we only need to look to France for a good example.
They aren’t though. The production of those employees far outpaces their compensation. Which is why the tax payers have to pick up the tab the owner should be paying. True. And people who do that, and do it 40 hours a week, are not compensated accordingly. Growing welfare is a direct result of capitalism. It’s unavoidable. Capitalism is still the best system, but it requires intervention in the form of regulation and social safety nets. You are never going to get rid of those safety nets. There is no support to do so. Not among the people, or any politician. That is not an opinion.
"Growing welfare is a direct result of capitalism" has to be one of the funniest things I've read all year. As to the rest of your post, I'll just leave it where it is.
It’s just economic reality. It is a direct result of capitalism. I take that as your concession. I accept.
Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs you move up from with work experience. Forcing high wages for these jobs does nothing but dry them up and make it more difficult for someone to get their first job
Why does the federal government have a minimum wage law? For those who can honestly answer this question, those answers support a significant increase in the current MW. The only issue is what should the MW wage be? The national median rent for one-bedrooms is ending the year at $1,025. If we ignore payroll withholding, divide $1,025 by $15/hour and we get 68 hours of work required to pay the rent. At $7.25/hour we get 141 hours of work required to pay the rent. Even our braindead people on PF can add in the costs for fuel, food, clothing, etc. to understand the MW must be greatly increased.
Obama Care called for health care coverage for employees working 30 hours per week and more. The first employers to cut hiring back to 29 hours per week were CITY GOVERNMENTS. The first city highlighted on the national news doing this was my hometown, Long Beach, CA. One of my employees quit to go to work for the city of Long Beach starting at 29 hours per week. Years later, he was still working 29 hours per week.
Raising the minimum wage accomplishes nothing. I learned that 50 years ago. The country had a recession in 1968 when I was a kid. My family got Life Magazine which had a story about a mid-level manager who got laid off and his journey to get another job in a recession. After two months, he got a new job. To add to the good news, the article said he got a raise to $20,000 per year. My father was a successful businessman. I showed the article to him and I asked wouldn't if be great if everyone made $20,000 per year. My father told me that if everyone made $20,000.00 per year, $20,000.00 wouldn't be worth much. He was right. 50 years later, where will $20,000.00 get you? A person's value is based on the value of their skill--not on some legislated base income.
On the plus side this will begin to set the stage for more and more Americans to want to move out of the cities to more and more rural areas: Could a real estate boom plus better Fed policy pay off USA national debt?
Actually there is more to the whole topic though........ An event in 1973 set the stage for certain decisions to be made in 1974 that is relevant to how and why things changed from those good ol' days..... Can we learn about the Washington Swamp from the Ottawa Swamp?
No one owes you a living it is up to you to make it. Take the words of Milton Friedman when he said the min wage hurts the poorest. Min Wage is set by the free market so you if do not like that you can change that but it is up to you the government has no place telling businesses what they have to pay their employees.