MW advocates - what are the downsides of minimum wage?

[Asclepias]

What happens if you raise the MW to a reasonable level?

Burger King moves to CANADA.

Nice going....

Even if that were true whats the downside in that? Another company will take BG's market share and fill in the void.

Another BREATHTAKING example of how little the FAR LEFT cares about private sector jobs in the US.

This guy really believes everyone should get a check, vote Dem, and pay no attention to the deficit.....


Patriotic Americans with brains want JOBS HERE, not in another country....

Hyperbole wont make you less wrong. Another company taking BK's market share would yield jobs here. Please address my question.

 

[task0778]

Minimum wage was never supposed to be a "living wage." It was supposed to be for kids under 18 during summer.

As government got bigger and bigger and more expensive, it has increased costs on businesses, driven some out of the US, and forced wages DOWN.

Want lower end wages to RISE?

CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.


Nobody was bitching about minimum wage before W's 8 year Bible Thumping Socialist PORKFEST.... followed by QUEER-O.

Thats also a dumb argument. Welfare wasnt meant to be for anyone other than whites but that too changed with time. The facts are that people with families are working shitty jobs for low wages. The MW should be something that gives people with a work ethic a reason to not be on welfare.

So how does rasing minimum wage help?

If MW were raised to $11 an hour , welfare use would drop by at least 15% by most studies. That's a pretty good savings of tax dollars.

I'd like to see a link to any study that claims the 15% drop, does it look at the big picture or just the people who get the pay raise? I did a little checking on this, and there are studies that support the conclusion that raising the M-Wage does cut welfare spending, for those who find themselves above the cutoff point for receiving certain benefits. Which is true enough, but there are other studies that say as a result of the increase in the M-Wage you also have people that have their hours cut or even lose their jobs, or young people entering the workforce that can't find a job. So those people get more benefits and that outweighs the people who get less.

There is most certainly some merit to that argument, which of course makes a boom the ideal time to raise the minimum wage. Trump should be pursuing this now.

And again, there has to be some thought to how much to raise it. I mean $11-12 an hour just places it right back where it would be if it had kept up with inflation, and with <3% unemployment companies arent going to be letting go of workers, and those who do get let go because of say a $2 an hour raise which is $80 a week obviously, honestly tough shit for them, they should have made themselves more valuable to their employer.

And if this is truly the path you believe in you have to couple it with not rewarding people who simply choose not to work at all. You can't have both.


ETA I had to delete the link because I can't post links, please don't think I was editing your post in any way.

Just tell me the name of the study then, I don't mind checking it out.

So wait a minute, some people get a higher wage, but some people don't. Some people end up with reduced benefits, or fewer hours worked. And some people end up out of a job, not to mention other people mostly young people, who can't find a job in the 1st place. Even in a boom time, that's not a good thing - which is why raising the M-Wage nationally is a very bad idea. That's because there are some places where the local economy can absorb the higher M-Wage but other places where it can't. Boom times don't last forever, they never do, so when you keep raising the M-Wage then sooner or later the shit hits the fan and you have too many small businesses that can't afford to pay that much in labor costs and many of them close their doors once the boom is over. In effect, raising the M-Wage shortens the time frame of a boom period, and makes the recovery a lot longer and tougher. Which means the federal gov't ought to keep their noses out of this question altogether, state and local gov'ts can decide for themselves if, when, and how much the M-Wage should be. Even better, let the local businesses decide that, I think the gov't at ANY level has no business setting arbitrary wage and price controls of any kind.

 

[Asclepias]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

 

[task0778]

I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.

This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.

When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.

And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.

Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.

 

[Mac1958]

I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.

This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.

When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.

And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.

Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.

The government, typically through Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded systems, is having to pick up where the employer leaves off.

So, our tax money is being used to supplement the income the person is making from the employer.

Your money, my money. Right now. Undeniable.
.

 

[task0778]

I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.

This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.

When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.

And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.

Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.

The government, typically through Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded systems, is having to pick up where the employer leaves off.

So, our tax money is being used to supplement the income the person is making from the employer.

Your money, my money. Right now. Undeniable.
.

That is still not subsidizing the employer. You think if the gov't wasn't paying the employees assistance through Medicaid or Foodstamps or whatever that the employer would be obliged to do so? Since when? They'll just make sure their employees are all classified as part-timers, right?

Let's go back to the argument about saving the taxpayers money if the M-Wage is raised. That has not been proven at all, some studies suggest that is true but others deny it. It flies in the face of all basic economics to think that when you raise the cost of labor the employers will meekly accept the increase in costs out of their profits. Nuh-uh, it doesn't usually work that way unless the business is already doing very well indeed. The problem is that most other small businesses may not be doing quite so well, and that higher cost of labor has to be offset somehow or the business becomes unfeasible to continue. So, they automate, or they cut hours or benefits, or they raise their prices (inflation!), or in some cases they just go out of business. So, the higher M-Wage will save taxpayer money for those who will get a bigger paycheck, cuz in some cases they won't be eligible any longer for certain gov't benefits that they used to get, and for some it's even a losing proposition because the new wage does not offset the loss of gov't benefits. So from this aspect, the higher M-Wage does result in less taxpayer money being spent on welfare programs.

But a higher M-Wage also means some employers get fired or see their hours and benefits cut. For them the gov't benefits (taxpayer money) will go up, and then there's the young people who are entering the workforce and can't find a job, there's a higher cost to the taxpayers too that could become long term once the boom period is over. And it WILL end sooner or later, it always does. So think about this, at some point the US economy goes into another recession or even a depression. Does anyone here believe that a higher M-Wage at that point in time is going to help the situation any? How many existing businesses will be forced to close because they can no longer afford the high labor costs that they could live with in the good times? New business startups require some investors to put up some money to get the business up and running, right? You know that these investors are going to look at the risks vs rewards, what is the expected profitability of the venture and what are the risks of failure? Let me clue everyone in, higher labor costs in the future does not improve the chances for investing money in any business that uses much labor. And that ain't good for people who will be looking for a job, unless they've got the necessary skills, training, or education to comma a higher income.

SO - for a whole host of reason, the gov't needs to stay the hell out of the wage and price controls business. Different regions and different business sectors can afford to pay different wages, and the locals can decide what they want to do based on their individual and local circumstances. But not the federal gov't, one size does not fit all situations, which is one big reason why they need to concentrate on the issues that ought be faced at the national level and leave issues like the M-Wage alone.

 

[Mac1958]

I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.

This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.

When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.

And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.

Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.

The government, typically through Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded systems, is having to pick up where the employer leaves off.

So, our tax money is being used to supplement the income the person is making from the employer.

Your money, my money. Right now. Undeniable.
.

That is still not subsidizing the employer. You think if the gov't wasn't paying the employees assistance through Medicaid or Foodstamps or whatever that the employer would be obliged to do so? Since when? They'll just make sure their employees are all classified as part-timers, right?

Let's go back to the argument about saving the taxpayers money if the M-Wage is raised. That has not been proven at all, some studies suggest that is true but others deny it. It flies in the face of all basic economics to think that when you raise the cost of labor the employers will meekly accept the increase in costs out of their profits. Nuh-uh, it doesn't usually work that way unless the business is already doing very well indeed. The problem is that most other small businesses may not be doing quite so well, and that higher cost of labor has to be offset somehow or the business becomes unfeasible to continue. So, they automate, or they cut hours or benefits, or they raise their prices (inflation!), or in some cases they just go out of business. So, the higher M-Wage will save taxpayer money for those who will get a bigger paycheck, cuz in some cases they won't be eligible any longer for certain gov't benefits that they used to get, and for some it's even a losing proposition because the new wage does not offset the loss of gov't benefits. So from this aspect, the higher M-Wage does result in less taxpayer money being spent on welfare programs.

But a higher M-Wage also means some employers get fired or see their hours and benefits cut. For them the gov't benefits (taxpayer money) will go up, and then there's the young people who are entering the workforce and can't find a job, there's a higher cost to the taxpayers too that could become long term once the boom period is over. And it WILL end sooner or later, it always does. So think about this, at some point the US economy goes into another recession or even a depression. Does anyone here believe that a higher M-Wage at that point in time is going to help the situation any? How many existing businesses will be forced to close because they can no longer afford the high labor costs that they could live with in the good times? New business startups require some investors to put up some money to get the business up and running, right? You know that these investors are going to look at the risks vs rewards, what is the expected profitability of the venture and what are the risks of failure? Let me clue everyone in, higher labor costs in the future does not improve the chances for investing money in any business that uses much labor. And that ain't good for people who will be looking for a job, unless they've got the necessary skills, training, or education to comma a higher income.

SO - for a whole host of reason, the gov't needs to stay the hell out of the wage and price controls business. Different regions and different business sectors can afford to pay different wages, and the locals can decide what they want to do based on their individual and local circumstances. But not the federal gov't, one size does not fit all situations, which is one big reason why they need to concentrate on the issues that ought be faced at the national level.

There are certainly downsides to a MW increase, and I pointed them out in post 112.

The fact remains, taxpayers are picking up where the employer leaves off. What should be or shouldn't be is not the point.
.

 

[Lesh]

It’s a strange argument because most liberals have no problem with welfare spending. They want to increase it dramatically. The argument seems primarily aimed at persuading conservatives to support raising the minimum wage.

That's as false as the OP. Liberals do not WANT people to be on welfare and we dot not "want it to increase it dramatically" We think it's NECESSARY in a society that demands 3% unemployment. It's necessary to make sure that those that can not support themselves for whatever reason do not starve or freeze to death

COMMENTS
Sabia and Nguyen did indeed find that minimum-wage hikes raise some workers’ pay, reducing their eligibility for welfare benefits. But other workers lose (or cannot find) jobs. They qualify for even more welfare benefits than before. On balance these two effects cancel each other out, leaving total spending unchanged.

If that's true (and considering the source it is doubtful) then there is no real harm in raising it

 

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage was never supposed to be a "living wage." It was supposed to be for kids under 18 during summer.

As government got bigger and bigger and more expensive, it has increased costs on businesses, driven some out of the US, and forced wages DOWN.

Want lower end wages to RISE?

CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.


Nobody was bitching about minimum wage before W's 8 year Bible Thumping Socialist PORKFEST.... followed by QUEER-O.

Thats also a dumb argument. Welfare wasnt meant to be for anyone other than whites but that too changed with time. The facts are that people with families are working shitty jobs for low wages. The MW should be something that gives people with a work ethic a reason to not be on welfare.

So how does rasing minimum wage help?

If MW were raised to $11 an hour , welfare use would drop by at least 15% by most studies. That's a pretty good savings of tax dollars.

I'd like to see a link to any study that claims the 15% drop, does it look at the big picture or just the people who get the pay raise? I did a little checking on this, and there are studies that support the conclusion that raising the M-Wage does cut welfare spending, for those who find themselves above the cutoff point for receiving certain benefits. Which is true enough, but there are other studies that say as a result of the increase in the M-Wage you also have people that have their hours cut or even lose their jobs, or young people entering the workforce that can't find a job. So those people get more benefits and that outweighs the people who get less.

From the link below:


One of the strangest arguments for raising the minimum wage has come from liberals claiming it will cut welfare spending. Many on the left argue that raising the minimum wage will raise earningsand cause workers to qualify for fewer welfare benefits.

It’s a strange argument because most liberals have no problem with welfare spending. They want to increase it dramatically. The argument seems primarily aimed at persuading conservatives to support raising the minimum wage.

Ron Unz and Phyllis Schlafly now support raising the minimum wage for exactly that reason. Indeed, virtually everyone on the right wants to reduce government dependence by expanding economic opportunity. If raising the minimum wage reduces welfare dependence, that‘s a strong argument for raising the minimum wage.

Last week economists shed some empirical light on this question. Joseph Sabia and Thanh Nguyen of San Diego State University released the most comprehensive analysis to date of the effects of minimum-wage increases on welfare caseloads. They examined every minimum wage hike between 1980 and 2014, as well as spending on the largest federal means-tested welfare programs: SNAP (aka food stamps), Medicaid, school lunches, AFDC/TANF, Section 8 housing vouchers, and WIC.

Their conclusion

COMMENTS
Sabia and Nguyen did indeed find that minimum-wage hikes raise some workers’ pay, reducing their eligibility for welfare benefits. But other workers lose (or cannot find) jobs. They qualify for even more welfare benefits than before. On balance these two effects cancel each other out, leaving total spending unchanged.

Minimum Wage Increase -- Welfare Spending Wont' Decrease Because of It | National Review

a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our First World economy.

 

[Thinker101]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

 

[danielpalos]

I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.

This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.

When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.

And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.

Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.

The government, typically through Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded systems, is having to pick up where the employer leaves off.

So, our tax money is being used to supplement the income the person is making from the employer.

Your money, my money. Right now. Undeniable.
.

That is still not subsidizing the employer. You think if the gov't wasn't paying the employees assistance through Medicaid or Foodstamps or whatever that the employer would be obliged to do so? Since when? They'll just make sure their employees are all classified as part-timers, right?

Let's go back to the argument about saving the taxpayers money if the M-Wage is raised. That has not been proven at all, some studies suggest that is true but others deny it. It flies in the face of all basic economics to think that when you raise the cost of labor the employers will meekly accept the increase in costs out of their profits. Nuh-uh, it doesn't usually work that way unless the business is already doing very well indeed. The problem is that most other small businesses may not be doing quite so well, and that higher cost of labor has to be offset somehow or the business becomes unfeasible to continue. So, they automate, or they cut hours or benefits, or they raise their prices (inflation!), or in some cases they just go out of business. So, the higher M-Wage will save taxpayer money for those who will get a bigger paycheck, cuz in some cases they won't be eligible any longer for certain gov't benefits that they used to get, and for some it's even a losing proposition because the new wage does not offset the loss of gov't benefits. So from this aspect, the higher M-Wage does result in less taxpayer money being spent on welfare programs.

But a higher M-Wage also means some employers get fired or see their hours and benefits cut. For them the gov't benefits (taxpayer money) will go up, and then there's the young people who are entering the workforce and can't find a job, there's a higher cost to the taxpayers too that could become long term once the boom period is over. And it WILL end sooner or later, it always does. So think about this, at some point the US economy goes into another recession or even a depression. Does anyone here believe that a higher M-Wage at that point in time is going to help the situation any? How many existing businesses will be forced to close because they can no longer afford the high labor costs that they could live with in the good times? New business startups require some investors to put up some money to get the business up and running, right? You know that these investors are going to look at the risks vs rewards, what is the expected profitability of the venture and what are the risks of failure? Let me clue everyone in, higher labor costs in the future does not improve the chances for investing money in any business that uses much labor. And that ain't good for people who will be looking for a job, unless they've got the necessary skills, training, or education to comma a higher income.

SO - for a whole host of reason, the gov't needs to stay the hell out of the wage and price controls business. Different regions and different business sectors can afford to pay different wages, and the locals can decide what they want to do based on their individual and local circumstances. But not the federal gov't, one size does not fit all situations, which is one big reason why they need to concentrate on the issues that ought be faced at the national level.

There are certainly downsides to a MW increase, and I pointed them out in post 112.

The fact remains, taxpayers are picking up where the employer leaves off. What should be or shouldn't be is not the point.
.

There is no reason to subsidize Cheap labor in our First World economy.

 

[Asclepias]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.

 

[sartre play]

1938 Ist minimum wage 25 cents a hour. last minimum wage increase 2009, $725
if we upped the increase every 2-3 years a small amount business would know it was coming & could plan for it.
there are down sides to everything, have to look at what helps the most people, and hurts the least.
not many places left where you can live on under 8$ an hour. right now we are a little behind, don't shot me just my opinion
but ist step could be to twelve.

 

[danielpalos]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.

they already got a tax break; they should be able to afford it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.

They can just close up shop.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1938 Ist minimum wage 25 cents a hour. last minimum wage increase 2009, $725
if we upped the increase every 2-3 years a small amount business would know it was coming & could plan for it.
there are down sides to everything, have to look at what helps the most people, and hurts the least.
not many places left where you can live on under 8$ an hour. right now we are a little behind, don't shot me just my opinion
but ist step could be to twelve.

Will the people making $12 now get a 4 dollar raise?

 

[Asclepias]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.

They can just close up shop.


.

Why would they do that and miss out on the tax deduction?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?

Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.

Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.

They can just close up shop.


.

Why would they do that and miss out on the tax deduction?

Why hassle with it?

Close up move to Fiji.


.

 

[dblack]

This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

Stupid argument is stupid.

The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.

Why isn't $200/hr sensible? That's all I'm really asking. Why would it be bad to set it very high? Answering that question is necessary when debating where we should set the minimum wage.

Clearly you recognize that it would be bad to set the minimum wage "too high". Why's it so hard to admit that and honestly discuss your reasoning?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

Stupid argument is stupid.

The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.

For some reason you munchkin's can't figure out minimum wage is zero..


No matter if it's $1 dollar an hour or $250 an hour.. the more you raise it the more you screw people in the upper tiers..


.