What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[danielpalos]

There would be fewer working, period. The only question is how many fewer. Obviously, a higher MW kills jobs. Doubt it? Set it to $100/hr and ask what would happen. Now, you CAN have a MW that doesn't kill too many jobs all at once, but you have to keep it low enough that it really doesn't make much of a difference. We have already lost a lot of low end jobs to higher costs, but as long as the pace is gradual enough, not too many complain.

who cares, if those not employed can opt for unemployment compensation?

Why presume fewer would be working?

Why presume raising the minimum wage would be inflationary?

Those who are not employed and have been displaced can receive UE, but not for ever. They must provide evidence that they are looking for a job, and the period of time under which UE insurance lasts can expire before a displaced person, especially in a slow economy, or worse, a recession. can secure employment.

Even when the do, the likelihood in such an economy is that they will make less and have fewer, if any, benefits. The consequences impact communities for decades (See: Roger and Me, here for a graphic example)

Roger & Me (1989) - Plot Summary - IMDb

BTW, simple explanations and simple solutions to the issue of MW & UE Insurance, Welfrare and other aspects of the economy are based on ignorance and biases, promulgated by the power elite who benefit by those who suffer and, or, exploited.

it may not be as inflationary as some claim, if anyone can quit and collect unemployment. employment is at will.

A person who quits a job is not eligible for UE insurance, they must be displaced by their employer, and not for cause (i.e. fired).

He's trying to change the meaning of unemployment compensation to cover welfare, and refuses to budge from that position.

i am not trying to change the meaning of employment at will. i am simply advocating for equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

Yes, the government can do lots of stupid things. Doesn't mean they should though.

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot when the electorate are informed and when they have a broad choice for whom to vote.

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

Yes, the government can do lots of stupid things. Doesn't mean they should though.

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot when the electorate are informed and when they have a broad choice for whom to vote.

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

 

[danielpalos]

reading comprehension not your strong suit?

who cares, if those not employed can opt for unemployment compensation?

they won't need to care about a job until they are ready for one. it really is that simple.

Apparently, you're not reading things very well. Everyone with two functioning brain cells cares very much that society not be saddled with the burden of supporting able bodied people perfectly capable of performing a useful job but who decide not to do so.

only the right, never gets it. Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Da comrade!

capitalism at its finest.

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

 

[danielpalos]

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot when the electorate are informed and when they have a broad choice for whom to vote.

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

Despite Obama holding us back.
Despite liberals and their lousy ideas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently, you're not reading things very well. Everyone with two functioning brain cells cares very much that society not be saddled with the burden of supporting able bodied people perfectly capable of performing a useful job but who decide not to do so.

only the right, never gets it. Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Da comrade!

capitalism at its finest.

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

choice is Marxism?

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.

 

[hadit]

There would be fewer working, period. The only question is how many fewer. Obviously, a higher MW kills jobs. Doubt it? Set it to $100/hr and ask what would happen. Now, you CAN have a MW that doesn't kill too many jobs all at once, but you have to keep it low enough that it really doesn't make much of a difference. We have already lost a lot of low end jobs to higher costs, but as long as the pace is gradual enough, not too many complain.

who cares, if those not employed can opt for unemployment compensation?

Why presume fewer would be working?

Why presume raising the minimum wage would be inflationary?

Those who are not employed and have been displaced can receive UE, but not for ever. They must provide evidence that they are looking for a job, and the period of time under which UE insurance lasts can expire before a displaced person, especially in a slow economy, or worse, a recession. can secure employment.

Even when the do, the likelihood in such an economy is that they will make less and have fewer, if any, benefits. The consequences impact communities for decades (See: Roger and Me, here for a graphic example)

Roger & Me (1989) - Plot Summary - IMDb

BTW, simple explanations and simple solutions to the issue of MW & UE Insurance, Welfrare and other aspects of the economy are based on ignorance and biases, promulgated by the power elite who benefit by those who suffer and, or, exploited.

it may not be as inflationary as some claim, if anyone can quit and collect unemployment. employment is at will.

A person who quits a job is not eligible for UE insurance, they must be displaced by their employer, and not for cause (i.e. fired).

why insist the poor have to work when there are no jobs and the rich can simply "steal from them" through unequal protection of the law.

And there are no jobs because the MW has priced many of them out of existence?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And of course you want us to pay your tuition

you are already paying for a War on Poverty. Why not actually solve simple poverty.

So me paying for you solves poverty?

You know what else solves poverty?

Working

you can quit if you don't like paying taxes. there are plenty of others who won't mind doing your job.

Says the person who wants to collect money for not working

And I pay my taxes every quarter and I;ll guarantee I pay more in taxes annually than you make in 2 years
If we are going to end the war on drugs then the people who pay taxes should get some of that money back. it shouldn't be given to lazy fucks who refuse to work

no one is making you work. i don't make policy, or we would have a better economy. why do you care if someone has to work for a living or not; do you also care how much someone else makes?

No no one makes anyone work and IDGAF what other people make as long as they support themselves and do not expect others to support them while they lounge around on their lazy asses all day


People with integrity pay their own way and don't want to leech off of others to live

 

[hadit]

No, they will not, and here is why.

1. They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2. ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached. First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit. Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3. There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so. Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed. You graduated from high school and want to start working? Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.

Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.

only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

 

[danielpalos]

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

Despite Obama holding us back.
Despite liberals and their lousy ideas.

despite the right having nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

only the right, never gets it. Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Da comrade!

capitalism at its finest.

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

choice is Marxism?

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.

equal protection of the law is Marxism to the fantastical, right wing?

 

[Skull Pilot]

McDonalds is already switching to Kiosks, robots(Pepper) and Ipads so higher wages will mean fewer jobs and less income for poor people and less demand in economy. Econ 101

unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that simple problem, dear.

The people who get laid off because of automation will get unemployment

You won't because you never had a job

shouldn't matter. employment at will, is just that; no automated car required.

automated car?

Do you even know what thread you're in?

You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own

That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it

i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.

you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com

Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.

 

[hadit]

Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

For now. China will soon have that distinction.

 

[danielpalos]

Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.

only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that simple problem, dear.

The people who get laid off because of automation will get unemployment

You won't because you never had a job

shouldn't matter. employment at will, is just that; no automated car required.

automated car?

Do you even know what thread you're in?

You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own

That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it

i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.

you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com

Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.

employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.

 

[danielpalos]

like how? better safety regulations?

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

For now. China will soon have that distinction.

only lousy management will help it happen.

 

[hadit]

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.

only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?

 

[hadit]

Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".

just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.

Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.

we have the largest economy in the world.

For now. China will soon have that distinction.

only lousy management will help it happen.

No, China has the advantage of a dominant government that can force a billion or more people to work for very low wages. The American consumers are responsible for manufacturing being shipped overseas because they demand the lowest price for goods.

 

[danielpalos]

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.

only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?

you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.