If national minimum wage was raised to $15 bucks an hour do you think

And did you expect to be able to support a family of four and send your kids to college on that?

 

You don't think it is a reality?

 

OH that does NOT fit into the Democrat talking points!!

 

I didn't know I had a family of four when I was 16, care to tell me what ones hiding?

 

Yeah, minimum wage was never supposed to be a "living wage" for a single person, much less a family. It was also never supposed to be a permanent career job.

 

Hahaha! You must have started young!

 

You know we always laugh at this, who the heck makes minimum wage for months much less years

 

Unfortunately yes my twin boys where born when I was 17 years old.

 

Better to organize under the banner of a union and bargain collectively for your wages, terms and conditions of employment.

 

Why ones skills suck and only have a PHD to operate the coffee maker?

 

Better then having someone with only a Masters degree operating the coffee maker.

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
And did you expect to be able to support a family of four and send your kids to college on that?

I'll take that as a no you didn't.

 

Uhm my 37 old twins are named Robert and james, thanks for the intrest

 

~ I don't think that the minimum wage has anything to do with the number of people on welfare. The economy and availability of jobs is more important.

 

What we neglect to think about is there are poorer "lower cost of living" parts of the country where a $15 minimum wage would really hurt.

I've noticed that people in the big city areas have a tendency to think everyone else in the country lives in the same sort of circumstances they do.

There's not the consumer spending power in some parts of the country to sustain a $15 minimum wage.
You want examples? Parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia. It would probably hurt teen employment as well in the Midwest. Who knows what would happen in the Rust Belt.

 

Unions always held down my wages, always better when I negotiated my own employment.

 

That is the primary argument against a Federal minimum wage mandate. Each state should set their own. States with lower minimum wage have correspondingly lower prices on everything = lower cost of living. It does also mean less sales tax revenue to the state for infrastructure and other programs. But, each state should choose, not the federal government picking 'one size minimum wage fits all'.

 

From age 14 to age 16 I made under minimum wage dishwashing, steak irons, fulltime after school. At 16 I got promoted to waiter and did better. The day I turned 18 I begged and pleaded for a machine shop job. The PM was brushing me off until I emphasized four years of fulltime work experience. That job changed my life, and I was still in high school.

 

This is a very good question!

In my opinion the best way to boost the USA economy is a Basic Minimum Income financed in the same way that President Abraham Lincoln financed the Greenback Monetary policy experiment that JFK attempted to duplicate....,. but what would I know..... I'm Canadian???

 

An excellent analogy indeed that fits very much with some of what economist Milton Friedman wrote in a Playbody article many years ago.

 

I don't think even each state setting it would be the most optimal. There are a lot of big states like California and New York where there are some huge disparities between different parts of the state. At least in some of these states, I think it would be better to set things at a more local level. (Now I'm not saying have the counties decide, but at least have the state divide the state into different zones, with graduated divisions at the boundary line)

 

If it is done over perhaps a three or four year period then it might, might work but you have to give small businesses time to adjust.

 

And what chance do the business that are started in "three or four years" get?

'Minimum wage' is an economic delusion.

 

New York has already done that.