Want to lower unemployment???

[healthmyths]

What a stupid theory.

Unemployment would not go down simply because of lowering the minimum wage.

It's likely even the opposite.

IT IS NOT a theory!
READ THESE FACTS dummy!!!
Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent).
Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over,
about 11 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less,
compared with about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and
about 2 percent of college graduates.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Do you understand that statistic???
9% of Minimum wage earners workers are not married!


Current workers at Minimum wage ARE NOT FAMILY of 4 sole income providers!

So the majority of people who work DON"T GET minimum wages!
The majority of people that get minimum wage are TEENAGERS not head of household sole income earner for Family of 4 getting paid minimum WAGE you dumb shit GET EARNED INCOME tax credits!

So how would YOUR hair brained theory work??
Would people QUIT their jobs if the minimum wage went down?? Then where would they go? Unemployment? CAN'T they quit!

So who would take their jobs?? Well the above statistics show single teenagers under age 25 with no skill sets because if the above idiots quit their low skill set jobs because they are making less.. that's their problem! They quit!
Maybe they should be more ambitious to get out of the minimum wage job!

NOW the math works. Every employer agrees that today they are finding less expensive ways to do their work with fewer people as a result of this economically stupid administration that has never had ANY experiences running businesses but plenty of experiences in destroying businesses!

 

[Mr Natural]

Lower the minimum wage.
That simple.
If you want the economic reality ask and I will share!

That's simple all right.

The OP author is simple all right.

 

[G.T.]

What a stupid theory.

Unemployment would not go down simply because of lowering the minimum wage.

It's likely even the opposite.

IT IS NOT a theory!
READ THESE FACTS dummy!!!
Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent).
Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over,
about 11 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less,
compared with about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and
about 2 percent of college graduates.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Do you understand that statistic???
9% of Minimum wage earners workers are not married!


Current workers at Minimum wage ARE NOT FAMILY of 4 sole income providers!

So the majority of people who work DON"T GET minimum wages!
The majority of people that get minimum wage are TEENAGERS not head of household sole income earner for Family of 4 getting paid minimum WAGE you dumb shit GET EARNED INCOME tax credits!

So how would YOUR hair brained theory work??
Would people QUIT their jobs if the minimum wage went down?? Then where would they go? Unemployment? CAN'T they quit!

So who would take their jobs?? Well the above statistics show single teenagers under age 25 with no skill sets because if the above idiots quit their low skill set jobs because they are making less.. that's their problem! They quit!
Maybe they should be more ambitious to get out of the minimum wage job!

NOW the math works. Every employer agrees that today they are finding less expensive ways to do their work with fewer people as a result of this economically stupid administration that has never had ANY experiences running businesses but plenty of experiences in destroying businesses!

Your diatribes with CAPS and repeating MEMES means you're UNHINGED.

But regardless of that, your inane rambling is meaningless. Unemployment would *not* go down if the minimum wage is lowered.

To not know the *reason* as to WHY THAT MIGHT BE (CAPS SIC), you have to be ignorant of the way Business works.

If you have to think critically about that for a good long while GOOD! You'll learn something and perhaps get off your undeserving HIGH HORSE.

Freak.


Please, please don't let this thread go by without you quoting "a trick I had learned", you obsessed mother fucker.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I used to work at a place that used substitutes, subs, to fill in when the regular workers were off.

When the business needed to cut costs, they cut the sub pay by 2 dollars an hour AND they stopped calling in subs as often; they would let regular jobs go unfilled as much as they could.

Lower wages did not produce more jobs; lower wages and fewer jobs were part of the same package.

 

[G.T.]

pinqy is about to drop knowledge and explode this thread on its face.

enjoy!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You make a good point but the question is, would they really hire more if it was dropped?

Sure would.


1. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?


2. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.
The above from "Race & Economics," chapter three, by Walter Williams.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am waiting for just one INQUISITIVE intelligent person to ask for the proof how lowering the minimum wage would lower unemployment!

It would increase unemployment, that's already been proven. With no disposable income to spend, consumers quit buying. Consumers quit buying, manufacturing slows. Manufacturing slows, unemployment increases.

The Rust Belt debunked your silly little disinfo theory 30 years ago.

Please try to keep up.

This is one of the most ignorant posts i've seen in a long time....and on this board, that's quite a feat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lower one's wages, the more government benefits one qualifies for.

A low minimum wage simply means that you the taxpayer are charged what the employer should be charged.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is preposterous.

Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them.

If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour.

If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not. He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done...

...lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work.

As usual....wrong.



1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.

2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’


3. . “You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods.

But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

 

[PoliticalChic]

The lower one's wages, the more government benefits one qualifies for.

A low minimum wage simply means that you the taxpayer are charged what the employer should be charged.

Great idea!
Get rid of the welfare system and minimum wage laws!

Problem solved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lower one's wages, the more government benefits one qualifies for.

A low minimum wage simply means that you the taxpayer are charged what the employer should be charged.

Great idea!
Get rid of the welfare system and minimum wage laws!

Problem solved.

A return to 1900.

Once again, my often ridiculed observation -

that conservative economic policy is designed to widen the gap between rich and poor -

is confirmed by another conservative.

 

[healthmyths]

This is preposterous.

Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them.

If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour.

If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not. He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done...

...lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work.

AND??? So what???? I imagine YOU bury your extra money in the back yard right???
I bet you have oh hundreds of dollars under your mattress???

IDIOT!
A) What have you Central planners constantly said.. STIMULATE the economy by borrowing more money from chinese !

B) What do you idiots say.. evil business owners will ONLY pocket the lower wages ... YET your frugal President is spending
millions today in Fl playing golf in secret while OUR taxes are paying his trips and wife's trip to CO!

C) AND YOU idiot... ASSUME just for once that the employers greedy bastards they are, KNOW if they had more people working slave labor wages of $6.00 who will want the jobs that will bring in more GroSS sales meaning UGH more profits! OH by the way did I mention more PROFITS mean MORE TAXES???

Works everytime.. when more people employed more taxes being paid by more people employed then going out to people in unemployment payments!

Besides... again you idiots have NO facts when you make your idiotic grandiose hyperbolic statements HERE are the facts as to
WHO is paid MINIMUM WAGE... Easy to get dumb shiT!!!

FROM THE GOVERNMENT if you took time to get your facts!!!
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.

Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less,
compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

I know to you this is complicated.. but SIMPLY put.
3.9 million make up I am shouting now!!! 1.2% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION!
And of these 3.9 million that make minimum or less.. 23% are teenagers!

So when the idiot,economic SHRIFTED Prez pushes for HIGHER minimum wage GEEZ don't you think employers will have to let workers go???

Nothing in the above rant has anything to do with what I posted, you asshole.

YOU POSTED:
"Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them."
SO what the f...k does that have to do with reality??? Of course the employer would LIKE workers to work for NOTHING! But he'd have no workers!
Employers want the lowest cost to produce a profit...DUH!!! do you understand???

"If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour."
First of all YOU are wrong! It is NOT $7.25 per hour BUT add the additional SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes which YOU obviously didn't know Employers pay,
THAT makes the job $8.26 per hour you dummy!

"If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not.
He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done..."
How in the f..k do you know?? YOU don't! But at now $7.12 ($6.25 PLUS 87 cents for SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes)
He can INCREASE business hours, increase production INCREASE Profits with MORE workers dummy!!!

"lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work."

SO f..king WHAT the difference?? Is the employer as you said a CHARITY offering work for people because the business is an eleemosynary entity?
F..K no! So what if he did keep the difference??
Unlike you he probably won't hide the extra money under his mattress or bury in the backyard!
MOST likely would spend it ... YEA... increase consumption!! Or invest it.. YEA!!! lower interest rates!
All of the above is BETTER then RAISING the minimum to $9.00 which really means the employer pays $10.25/ hour with SS/Medicare/FUTA!!!
So the employer at $10.25 because of the $9.00 minimum has to let people go!
__________________

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is preposterous.

Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them.

If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour.

If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not. He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done...

...lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work.

As usual....wrong.



1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.

2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’


3. . “You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods.

But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?

Can you cite them specifically?

 

[NYcarbineer]

AND??? So what???? I imagine YOU bury your extra money in the back yard right???
I bet you have oh hundreds of dollars under your mattress???

IDIOT!
A) What have you Central planners constantly said.. STIMULATE the economy by borrowing more money from chinese !

B) What do you idiots say.. evil business owners will ONLY pocket the lower wages ... YET your frugal President is spending
millions today in Fl playing golf in secret while OUR taxes are paying his trips and wife's trip to CO!

C) AND YOU idiot... ASSUME just for once that the employers greedy bastards they are, KNOW if they had more people working slave labor wages of $6.00 who will want the jobs that will bring in more GroSS sales meaning UGH more profits! OH by the way did I mention more PROFITS mean MORE TAXES???

Works everytime.. when more people employed more taxes being paid by more people employed then going out to people in unemployment payments!

Besides... again you idiots have NO facts when you make your idiotic grandiose hyperbolic statements HERE are the facts as to
WHO is paid MINIMUM WAGE... Easy to get dumb shiT!!!

FROM THE GOVERNMENT if you took time to get your facts!!!
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.

Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less,
compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

I know to you this is complicated.. but SIMPLY put.
3.9 million make up I am shouting now!!! 1.2% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION!
And of these 3.9 million that make minimum or less.. 23% are teenagers!

So when the idiot,economic SHRIFTED Prez pushes for HIGHER minimum wage GEEZ don't you think employers will have to let workers go???

Nothing in the above rant has anything to do with what I posted, you asshole.

YOU POSTED:
"Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them."
SO what the f...k does that have to do with reality??? Of course the employer would LIKE workers to work for NOTHING! But he'd have no workers!
Employers want the lowest cost to produce a profit...DUH!!! do you understand???

"If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour."
First of all YOU are wrong! It is NOT $7.25 per hour BUT add the additional SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes which YOU obviously didn't know Employers pay,
THAT makes the job $8.26 per hour you dummy!

"If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not.
He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done..."
How in the f..k do you know?? YOU don't! But at now $7.12 ($6.25 PLUS 87 cents for SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes)
He can INCREASE business hours, increase production INCREASE Profits with MORE workers dummy!!!

"lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work."

SO f..king WHAT the difference?? Is the employer as you said a CHARITY offering work for people because the business is an eleemosynary entity?
F..K no! So what if he did keep the difference??
Unlike you he probably won't hide the extra money under his mattress or bury in the backyard!
MOST likely would spend it ... YEA... increase consumption!! Or invest it.. YEA!!! lower interest rates!
All of the above is BETTER then RAISING the minimum to $9.00 which really means the employer pays $10.25/ hour with SS/Medicare/FUTA!!!
So the employer at $10.25 because of the $9.00 minimum has to let people go!
__________________

So you admit that the lower minimum wage just means higher profits for the employer, not more jobs for the worker.

You do understand that the lower the minimum wage, the more the worker will be eligible for in tax payer funded needs based benefits, right?

 

[healthmyths]

This is preposterous.

Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them.

If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour.

If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not. He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done...

...lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work.

As usual....wrong.



1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.

2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’


3. . “You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods.

But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?

Can you cite them specifically?

OF course NOT because employers are profit oriented and NOT one employer will hire just because they can get them for lower wages!
BUT they will hire more to get more revenue if their costs are the same!
By hiring $7.12/hour (with taxes included) they can get MORE workers for the same costs.. therefore MORE production means more profits!!!
Are you really that economically ignorant???
BUT they are making these $8.25 hr ($7.25 min wage) workers work harder and therefore more mistakes etc. they would prefer MORE workers at lower wages
because they can get the same production with LESS errors!!!

Now here is what the Government massive Obamcare is causing PEOPLE TO WORK LESS HOURS!
And people having to do more with less co-workers!

John Mackey, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Whole Foods, an outspoken critic of the Obama health reform law.

His chain already offers health care to workers at the 30-hour threshold. But the company may be forced to reconsider its full-time staffing levels, if the final employer mandate rules still being crafted by the Obama administration require companies to offer costly benefit options, he said.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
"Say we're paying $3,200 a year for insurance for somebody, and the new regulations cost us $5,000 to insure somebody.
If they work fewer hours, we just saved $5,000 per person," because there is no mandate to provide coverage for part-time workers, he explained.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
GREEDY BASTARD!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)

we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.

What's gotten better?

 

[Mr Natural]

Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)

we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.

What's gotten better?

Executive compensation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As usual....wrong.



1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.

2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’


3. . “You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods.

But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?

Can you cite them specifically?

OF course NOT because employers are profit oriented and NOT one employer will hire just because they can get them for lower wages!
BUT they will hire more to get more revenue if their costs are the same!
By hiring $7.12/hour (with taxes included) they can get MORE workers for the same costs.. therefore MORE production means more profits!!!
Are you really that economically ignorant???
BUT they are making these $8.25 hr ($7.25 min wage) workers work harder and therefore more mistakes etc. they would prefer MORE workers at lower wages
because they can get the same production with LESS errors!!!

Now here is what the Government massive Obamcare is causing PEOPLE TO WORK LESS HOURS!
And people having to do more with less co-workers!

John Mackey, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Whole Foods, an outspoken critic of the Obama health reform law.

His chain already offers health care to workers at the 30-hour threshold. But the company may be forced to reconsider its full-time staffing levels, if the final employer mandate rules still being crafted by the Obama administration require companies to offer costly benefit options, he said.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
"Say we're paying $3,200 a year for insurance for somebody, and the new regulations cost us $5,000 to insure somebody.
If they work fewer hours, we just saved $5,000 per person," because there is no mandate to provide coverage for part-time workers, he explained.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
GREEDY BASTARD!!!

The only case where you would hire more workers at 7.00 per hour instead of 8.00 per hour would be if you were losing money on labor at 8.00 an hour.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)

we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.

What's gotten better?

Executive compensation.

Yes, and corporate profits:

As you can see, there has been a huge redistribution of wealth from the makers to the takers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The lower one's wages, the more government benefits one qualifies for.

A low minimum wage simply means that you the taxpayer are charged what the employer should be charged.

Great idea!
Get rid of the welfare system and minimum wage laws!

Problem solved.

A return to 1900.

Once again, my often ridiculed observation -

that conservative economic policy is designed to widen the gap between rich and poor -

is confirmed by another conservative.

The dumbest among us (raise your paw) fail to avail themselves of either schooling, or the use of a library.


The dumbest of politicians maintain the fabrication that that human behavior is static...while, in actuality it is dynamic.

That explains the following:

"Bottom Line: It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy