Raising minimum wage

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by afjess1989

I think they should raise it based on the area. I agree with philibusters what's good for Maryland might not be good for say Ohio for example

where do you expect this money to magically come from ?

either the cost of a Pizza goes up, or the store fires a person ..... Taxes still have to be paid and flour purchased ......

so the cost of a bunch of things goes up, and people complain they need another pay raise ....

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by GURPS

where do you expect this money to magically come from ?

either the cost of a Pizza goes up, or the store fires a person ..... Taxes still have to be paid and flour purchased ......

so the cost of a bunch of things goes up, and people complain they need another pay raise ....

Prices will either go up or a business will employ less people. Looking at those two scenarios:

1. Prices go up: I am not overly concerned about that. Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements. For one thing, in order to benefit from this type of wealth distribution, you have to be working, so its the opposite of welfare not tied to work, it directly gives somebody an incentive to work. If these people are working and being productive rather than being non-productive members of society then the economy has a whole will benefit as that will slightly increase the growth of the economy.

2. Businesses employ less people: It really depends on the local economy. If unemployment is 2% or something really low like that, its not really an issue because the workers who were let go or not hired at one business will be able to find work someplace else. Basically we are talking about an economy where the demand for workers is high. In an economy with high employment and lower demand for workers, a minimum wage law can have the unintended consequence of causing high rates of unemployement for unskilled workers. That is a real problem and another argument minimum wage laws are best dealt with on a local basis.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements.

yeah sure ok ...

... except the GOV. is NOT Lowering taxes, just because the raise the MW


that is offensive to think of MW as nothing more than another Gov. Wealth Redistribution Scheme ....

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by FreedomFan

Milton Friedman has it right. Minimum wage laws hurt precisely the targeted group of people they ostensibly are designed to help. Once you figure out salaries are an integral part of the cost of goods sold, I think most rational actors will look at things completely differently.

My paycheck is larger, that must be a good thing. Why am I still living payday to payday?

Raising the minimum wage decade after decade and minimum wage earners are still living payday to payday.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

2. Businesses employ less people: It really depends on the local economy. If unemployment is 2% or something really low like that, its not really an issue because the workers who were let go or not hired at one business will be able to find work someplace else. Basically we are talking about an economy where the demand for workers is high. In an economy with high employment and lower demand for workers, a minimum wage law can have the unintended consequence of causing high rates of unemployement for unskilled workers. That is a real problem and another argument minimum wage laws are best dealt with on a local basis.

Minimum wage laws are the sort of thing the Constitution was meant to prohibit; abuse of a minority by the majority. Same with withholding taxes. We make business do things we can not and should not do.

Consider. If a minimum wage is something the community wants then, let the community pay it. Directly. Freeze minimum wages where they are RIGHT now and every time there is a desire to raise it, simply require folks to bring in their paychecks and pay them the difference between what they are making and what it 'should' be. This does several things;

1. Gives people the money the community, through it's politicians, thinks they should have.

2. Encourages having a job and remaining employed.

3. Puts the cost of what the community thinks where it should be, on the community.

Business should be exempt from ALL taxes. Payroll, income, unemployment, all of it because ANY tax on business simply gets passed on to the voters ABSENT the check and balance of responsibility that should be on politicians
and, more importantly, on us, we, the people.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

1. Prices go up: I am not overly concerned about that. Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements. For one thing, in order to benefit from this type of wealth distribution, you have to be working, so its the opposite of welfare not tied to work, it directly gives somebody an incentive to work. If these people are working and being productive rather than being non-productive members of society then the economy has a whole will benefit as that will slightly increase the growth of the economy. .

I think my other post killed two birds with one stone. Call it a hi capacity assault stone.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Raising the minimum wage decade after decade and minimum wage earners are still living payday to payday.

The obvious culprit is inflation.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by GURPS

that is offensive to think of MW as nothing more than another Gov. Wealth Redistribution Scheme ....

That is what it is and it doesn't really bother me. If there is going to be wealth distribution as I noted earlier I would much rather it be in the form of a minimum wage increase rather than through means tested welfare.

[abcxyz]

I agree to some extent, however if wages go up at the bottom they are going to have to go up at the top as well.

My $7.25 person is now making $10, a 38% raise. Now my $10 person is going to want to go to $13.80 to get their 38% raise as well.

What comes after that? Prices go up and layoffs, which means more people on welfare. Vicious cycle and we are spiraling in the wrong direction.

[mAlice]

Originally Posted by philibusters

That is what it is and it doesn't really bother me. If there is going to be wealth distribution as I noted earlier I would much rather it be in the form of a minimum wage increase rather than through means tested welfare.

But, we have both.