If raising min-wage is so great, why not make it all the way to $100?

We were talking welfare . You will get fewer minimum wage jobs by in affect taxing them by artificially raising them

 

Wrong

Its twice what it was originally

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

- - - Updated - - -

Its the start of the Dems taking over congress. Still blaming Bush

 

That should be easy to support. Post statistics that show this. My guess is that there are more minimum wage jobs since the last hike, not less.

 

good for you, I am in the same boat, many were not, many were effected by the down economy... but as long as you have yours... it's all good right

I think the gov can work to bring jobs back and reduce foreign outsourcing and address foreign imports..... and help others to be like you and I

if the jobs are not there, people will not have those jobs

I have paid basically the same taxes under dems or republicans.... only the taxes for the super rich have decreased

.

 

I understand that people who are in favour of minimum wages are so because they want people to be able to afford basic and tolerable standard of living. A laudable goal, and I share it. However, the problem is that a minimum wage is a really stupid way of trying to reach that goal. See, minimum wages are a form of price controls. They set a minimum price for labour. Basic economics tells us that if you fix supply-price at a point which is above the market equilibrium is, you will artificially create high supply and low demand. The effects of this is, among other things, that such jobs are automatised, that fewer people are employed, that people with low skills become unemployable, robbing them of their chance to gain experience. It creates all kinds of problems, mostly for the very people you are trying to help.

I think that the government has a role to make sure that all people live above a certain standard of living. BUT wages are not the right place for the government to intervene. Instead of minimum wages, it's much better to just let people work at whatever wages the market will give them, and then suppliment that with benefits. This achieves the goal, but it doesn't distort the markets. Why are you insisting on minimum wages when there are better alternatives?

 

Well, sure, I can't argue about any particular person, I was referring to the background to it. For instance, the politicians you mention are probably not unaware of the arguments, but it's not the points they're trying to make.

 

CEO pay totally disproves that theory. Look at the head of Yahoo or Carly Fiorina, etc,etc.

 

Another example of why conservatives should never have control of an economy, they do not understand it.

 

You need to realze that this forum is a written form of communication so if you are still waiting to hear you have a long wait.

- - - Updated - - -

So if we eliminate the minimum wage the illegals will go home?

 

Well perhaps if the Conservatives hadn't spent so much effort opposing birth control and sex education in schools !

 

If having a minimum wage is so bad why not lower it to $0?

As of July 2015, the federal government mandates a nationwide minimum wage level of a lowly $7.25 per hour. Effective January 1, 2015 there were 29 states with a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. From 2014 to 2015, nine states increased their minimum wage levels through automatic adjustments, while increases in 11 other states occurred through legislative or ballot changes.

The advantage of allowing states and cities to democratically determine the appropriate figure is obvious. Not only are local criteria applied rather than being imposed from Washington. They serve as 'experiments' that afford data concerning the consequences of varying minimal levels.

Just as Sammy Brownback's disastrous "experiment", his touted Red State Model, produced ample evidence for other states not to follow his dogma, so comparison of a range of minimum wages yields empirical data for setting the optimal level of a minimum wage.

Allowing states to serve as laboratories of democracy is a pragmatic approach that beats the crap out of tenaciously clinging to anyone's ideological scripture.


.

 

You know, if you could make your own cogent argument rather than making stupid claims about what other people think ....

Let me try to reverse the argument....

Why should there not be an income limit of, say, $200,000?
Why should there not be a personal property limit of, say, $2,000,000?

Of course the answer is that on Sunday, "conservatives" speak of "entering the kingdom of heaven" while the other 6 days they're driven exclusively by greed, anger, and hate.

See? Not hard to talk in ridiculous terms about what the other guy thinks.

 

but.. but... but I thought Obama was raising taxes to go after "the rich"? Oh that's right, he raised taxes on "income" meaning he raised taxes on upper end middle class, people who work hard, employ people, are not rich. Look up HENRY's.

So Obama lied and you leftie's fell for it. You admit it here.

 

Regardless of those "liberals" that fester in your noggin, what has the Republican-run Congress that controls revenue legislated to tap the ever-prospering elite?

Did I miss their attempt to make taxation fair and equitable that the President vetoed?

 

it is mostly all politics, just like official poverty.

in any case, our current regime of minimum wage only helps active labor market participants.

 

Employees are employed because they are making more money for their employer than they are being paid. That is simple and undeniable economic fact, no business that did pay their employees more than they made for the company would stay in business for any time at all. There are many good reasons this should be so, but it remains a fact that no employer is doing his employees a great favor by "creating' their jobs. On the contrary, they are making HIM rich and he is thus the major beneficiary in this transaction

The reason the minimum wage should be 15$ (and not $100) is because that is the minimum amount necessary to keep the employee off the Welfare rolls. Employers disputing this are, in fact, Welfare cheats, wanting the taxpayer to subsidize their labor costs. Conservatives countenance this egregious and intellectually dishonest practice which violates all the principles of even the conservatives OWN form of "morality" (as they laughingly call it) because THEY are the main ones doing it, not poor people.

The continued and seemingly nonplussed response to this claptrap that conservatives get from liberals on this "question" is largely slack jawed amazement that anyone would be so thick as to keep trotting it out when it has been so thoroughly and easily refuted so many times in the past. We forget, however, that we are dealing with conservatives here. Their statements are never cogent presentations of fact and logical reasoning, but largely propaganda, where talking points are repeated endlessly no matter how many times and to what degree they are proven ridiculous. "What a rightist tells you three or more times is true" seems to be their guiding dictum.

 

i prefer smoothies; but, that didn't happen either.

 

You're babbling again daniel

 

you seem like you just need a good sugaring, sugar.

 

Oh yeah - I'm sure most politicians are. I imagine there are a few who are actually just dense and surrounded by sounding boards, but in general I agree with you when you put it like that.

 

no, probably not, because people will still hire them.

 

Why not simply reserve US labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage and subsidize it through market friendly work visas on foreign labor willing to try their luck in our markets?

 

republicans control Congress, he did get it raised some for those making over 1 million a year

 

You do realize that money made from investing capital is also income. Of course Long term capital gains are taxed less than income from wages but who ever claimed the rich don't actually make the laws for their own benefit?

 

if Taxes are so Bad, why have any work taxes?