Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So basically you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. I gotcha.Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...
Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.
Uh... beats me. I did git a couple of decent answers here, from honest supporters of MW. Yours were throwaways.
what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.From the link below:
In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:
…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]
In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”
Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.
The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.
This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.
When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:
Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.
In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:
that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.
What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan
Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
IOW you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. Understood.So basically you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. I gotcha.Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...
Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.
Uh... beats me. I did git a couple of decent answers here, from honest supporters of MW. Yours were throwaways.
I threw out the ones that were devoid of reason and dishonest.
IOW you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. Understood.So basically you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. I gotcha.Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.
Uh... beats me. I did git a couple of decent answers here, from honest supporters of MW. Yours were throwaways.
I threw out the ones that were devoid of reason and dishonest.
What is still zero? This is the first I have heard you mention this.Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
You still can't not comprehend it is still zero no matter how much minimum wage is Rasied?
Seriously ..this is that mind boggling to you?
what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.
If you put MW at $20/hour its not zero. Its 20What is still zero? This is the first I have heard you mention this.Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
You still can't not comprehend it is still zero no matter how much minimum wage is Rasied?
Seriously ..this is that mind boggling to you?
We all have been saying it forever..
No matter where you put minimum wage at it's still zero.
Look at Australia and their high minimum wage they still have a shit load of working poor people..
thank goodness for a doctrine of separation of powers.what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.
Dr. Seuss is IN THE HOUSE!!!
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.
what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.From the link below:
In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:
…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]
In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”
Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.
The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.
This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.
When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:
Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.
In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:
that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.
What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan
Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
I dunno what you're talking about ...
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.
"..at what point does my labor costs make my business no longer worth the trouble?"what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.From the link below:
In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:
…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]
In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”
Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.
The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.
This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.
When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:
Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.
In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:
that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.
What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan
Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
I dunno what you're talking about, what do you mean "not for cause"?. Employment is about productivity as it relates to profitability, that's the "cause" for hiring somebody. It ain't a question of will, an employer can hire whoever they want at whatever wage they want to pay, nobody is arguing against that. It's a question of value, not "will", at what point does my labor costs make my business no longer worth the trouble? Can I cut the hours worked, or can I cut the benefits somehow?
So spell it out, what is it that the right wing gets wrong? I can tell you what the left wing gets wrong, they believe there are no consequences to raising the M-W. No problem, we'll just raise prices and everybody will be happy, right? Except that reality doesn't work that way. Why? Because in this economy there are alternatives, other choices I can make with my hard-earned dollars. You raise your prices, but I'm gonna buy somethng instead if I think the value is no longer there for me, or I flat out can't afford it.
Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.Well you assumed there was a downside that advocates of MW laws had and youre right your objections werent the point since you specifically asked about what downsides I saw.What I perceive as a downside is that it causes unemployment and inflation, and is a violation of basic economic liberty. But my objections aren't the point of the thread.
Ok, so is this your reason for not raising it more? I'm still not clear. If it wouldn't cause any problems, why would you want everyone to be rich?
I cant put it to you any clearer. Obviously you have the assumption that MW advocates believe everyone should be rich. No one with a brain thinks or assumes that.
So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
Actually you have no clue what you are talking about. My whole point was that people should be paid a living wage in accordance to what wealth is generated in their country. Just because you neglected to read it dont lie and say I didnt mention it.Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.Well you assumed there was a downside that advocates of MW laws had and youre right your objections werent the point since you specifically asked about what downsides I saw.
I cant put it to you any clearer. Obviously you have the assumption that MW advocates believe everyone should be rich. No one with a brain thinks or assumes that.
So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
Now you're weaseling out of your position by adding qualifiers. "Standards this nation can afford" was not part of your original stance. By adding it, you are tacitly admitting you were incorrect. You cannot eliminate poverty by setting the MW to $100/hr, because almost no jobs are worth that much. Thus, there ARE downsides to raising the MW. It is only a matter of degree.
If you really think you could raise it that high with no ill effect, you cannot be helped.
I dunno what you're talking about ...
Neither does daniel. Don't let him suck you in.
Actually you have no clue what you are talking about. My whole point was that people should be paid a living wage in accordance to what wealth is generated in their country. Just because you neglected to read it dont lie and say I didnt mention it.Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
Now you're weaseling out of your position by adding qualifiers. "Standards this nation can afford" was not part of your original stance. By adding it, you are tacitly admitting you were incorrect. You cannot eliminate poverty by setting the MW to $100/hr, because almost no jobs are worth that much. Thus, there ARE downsides to raising the MW. It is only a matter of degree.
If you really think you could raise it that high with no ill effect, you cannot be helped.
I never said MW should be raised to $100/hr. Only an idiot would think that was the lowest wage someone could live on.
So youre just going to totally ignore that you lied by asking me a question?Actually you have no clue what you are talking about. My whole point was that people should be paid a living wage in accordance to what wealth is generated in their country. Just because you neglected to read it dont lie and say I didnt mention it.Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.
You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.
Now you're weaseling out of your position by adding qualifiers. "Standards this nation can afford" was not part of your original stance. By adding it, you are tacitly admitting you were incorrect. You cannot eliminate poverty by setting the MW to $100/hr, because almost no jobs are worth that much. Thus, there ARE downsides to raising the MW. It is only a matter of degree.
If you really think you could raise it that high with no ill effect, you cannot be helped.
I never said MW should be raised to $100/hr. Only an idiot would think that was the lowest wage someone could live on.
You think a person should be paid an artificially high wage because someone else generated more revenue somewhere?
Only an idiot thinks there are no downsides to raising the MW, as easily demonstrated by this thought experiment. Simply raise it absurdly high and eliminate poverty altogether. You can't, because reality gets in the way. Thus, there are downsides to raising the MW. It's only a matter of degree.
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not complain about Minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists complain about Minimum wages.what the right wing gets wrong is that employment is at-will, not for-cause.From the link below:
In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:
…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]
In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”
Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.
The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.
This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.
When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:
Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.
In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:
that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.
What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan
Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
I dunno what you're talking about, what do you mean "not for cause"?. Employment is about productivity as it relates to profitability, that's the "cause" for hiring somebody. It ain't a question of will, an employer should be able to hire whoever they want at whatever higher wage they want to pay. It's a question of value, not "will", at what point does my labor costs make my business no longer worth the trouble? Can I cut the hours worked, or can I cut the benefits somehow?
So spell it out, what is it that the right wing gets wrong? I can tell you what the left wing gets wrong, they believe there are no consequences to raising the M-W. No problem, we'll just raise prices and everybody will be happy, right? Except that reality doesn't work that way. Why? Because in this economy there are alternatives, other choices I can make with my hard-earned dollars. You raise your prices, but I'm gonna buy somethng instead if I think the value is no longer there for me, or I flat out can't afford it.
Food, clothing, education, and shelterThere are no downsides to a minimum wage law. What you perceive as a downside is a knowledge that you must start somewhere and typically thats at the bottom. People that start at the bottom should expect a bottom salary that pays the basic bills. It shouldnt pay for your new Bentley. Hence you shouldnt be making $200 per hour.
What basic bills are that...
Democrat high taxes or republican low taxes?
