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.
4. Competition Will Intensify
So what. Employment is at the will of either party and should unemployment compensation. Potential labor should be able to go to school for as long as they want. Obey at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation right wingers.If minimum wage increases, overly qualified individuals will be vying for minimum wage positions, pushing younger, inexperienced workers out of the running and robbing them of their opportunity to gain experience and knowledge to build a resume for themselves and enter the workforce.
5. Applied Inconsistently
Proof we need a national fixed Standard.Many states have their own set minimum wages, which are currently above $7.25 per hour already. As of January 1, 2014, 21 states (and D.C.) have minimum wages above $7.15 per hour (Washington being the highest at $9.32 per hour), so the amount the national minimum wage is set at varies in significance from state to state.
Silly right wing logic at its finest. Why upgrade your skillsets, or improve your house; you will only get Taxed more.1. doesn't matter how much $$$$ you give stupid people, they will still be poor“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.
The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.
Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;
(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.
[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn
2. higher wages = higher prices!!!! SO, they still can't afford things!! DUH
That's a lie. One side has cash, the other has labor. Both can negotiate.Because only once side has negotiating leverage
The markey doesn't say that. Stop with the childish bromides.Just because the market says you can exploit someone doesn’t mean you should.
Irrelevant.The taxpayer makes up the difference
Whose fault is that? The potential employer, the taxpayer, or the individual who hasn't acquired a marketable skill set?Low skill, low wage workers have very little negotiating leverage.
Poor choices result in undesirable outcomes.Which is why it is so easy to exploit them.
Maybe you do, but skilled people do not.Why we need a minimum wage
We gave employers a 40 percent tax cut and they just kept most of the money
They move on and someone else comes in to be exploited.
higher wages = higher prices!!!
Higher wages mean more consumption, less debt, less need for public support.
Relevant reading...
Raising minimum wage hurts the poor
Snip...
...Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ''wedge'' between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment.
Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the ''minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker.
For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?
Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment opportunities and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!
Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens ''you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.''..
Because central economic planning by a central bank and economic interventionism is the polar opposite of free-market principles/economics.
Business knows that there are a low skilled class of people who will accept any meager wage offered. As long as they have a supply of those people, they will pay any wage they can get away with.
Republicans celebrate that as Free Market
But that market does not pay a wage workers can support themselves or a family. The taxpayer picks up the difference in housing aid, food stamps, medical care.
The employer keeps the profit
www.bls.gov
I said low skill workers.Business knows that there are a low skilled class of people who will accept any meager wage offered. As long as they have a supply of those people, they will pay any wage they can get away with.
Republicans celebrate that as Free Market
But that market does not pay a wage workers can support themselves or a family. The taxpayer picks up the difference in housing aid, food stamps, medical care.
The employer keeps the profit
Business knows that there are a low skilled class of people who will accept any meager wage offered. As long as they have a supply of those people, they will pay any wage they can get away with.
Then why were only the bottom 2% of hourly workers making at or below the minimum wage?
View attachment 382215
.Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages...
But that market does not pay a wage workers can support themselves or a family.
Most minimum wage workers are young and live with their parents.
View attachment 382219
Half are under 25. Only about 1% of workers 25 and older earn minimum wage.
I said low skill workers.Business knows that there are a low skilled class of people who will accept any meager wage offered. As long as they have a supply of those people, they will pay any wage they can get away with.
Republicans celebrate that as Free Market
But that market does not pay a wage workers can support themselves or a family. The taxpayer picks up the difference in housing aid, food stamps, medical care.
The employer keeps the profit
Business knows that there are a low skilled class of people who will accept any meager wage offered. As long as they have a supply of those people, they will pay any wage they can get away with.
Then why were only the bottom 2% of hourly workers making at or below the minimum wage?
View attachment 382215
.Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages...
But that market does not pay a wage workers can support themselves or a family.
Most minimum wage workers are young and live with their parents.
View attachment 382219
Half are under 25. Only about 1% of workers 25 and older earn minimum wage.
Workers who need public support to survive
higher wages = higher prices!!!
Higher wages mean more consumption, less debt, less need for public support.
Higher wages mean more consumption, less debt, less need for public support.
And less consumption, more debt for the business.
Low skill workers should work on their skills before starting a family.
/—-/ That makes no sense. What are you babbling about?3. Fewer HiringsSo what. Employment is at the will of either party and so should unemployment compensation. Obey the laws right wingers.If business must pay their minimum wage employees more, they cannot afford to hire as many employees. According to a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago study, “10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent.” Or instead of hiring fewer employees, the company may start outsourcing jobs to employees in countries that are willing to work for much less than $10.10 per hour, resulting in fewer jobs for Americans.
a lot of good raising the wages will do while the democrat shut down of the country has happened“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.
The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.
Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;
(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.
[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn
Minimum wage is one of the dumbest cons liberals ever thought up. Fortunately for them, there are lots of dumb people in the world.
