The Cruelty of the $15 Minimum Wage

If they want to, why should they be prevented from doing so? People have all sorts of reasons for wanting those 'crappy' jobs.

 

I didn't say it would 'vanish'. It's the difference between day to day profligate spending on consumables (Starbucks etc), and saving every spare cent for ten 20 years in order to cash buy property (for example). There is a considerable difference to the consumer market between the former and the latter.

FTR: my experience is not drawn from a nation with an illegal migrant problem. 99.9% of our migrants are legal.

 

They're still doing it. I'm talking about families who migrated 40 years ago, or 4 months ago. And they're still making it work for them, because they're willing to adapt to changing economies.

 

I assume, so one rathers to be the ward of the state?

 

Not at all. Many migrants have skills or qualifications not recognised in their new country, and therefore need access to such jobs. Keeping in mind I'm talking about our migrants, not American migrants. Ours are very industrious, and are rapidly becoming richer and better educated that the white majority. And yes, that includes those who started their new lives in crappy jobs.

 

Further, how in hell are people going to escape poverty if they spend their excess (under increased minimum wage). Sounds like a master plan to keep people in poverty, while billionaires reap the additional profits. Not that we ever thought that wasn't the end goal.

 

Care to enlighten me as to where you draw your experience?

 

And you’re still citing anecdotal evidence.

 

How the heck can anyone escape poverty if its always zero?

Minimum wage once again is zero, no matter if you make it 25 cents or one million dollars

 

How in the world you’ve come to the conclusion that paying people more (read: fair) wages to be a scheme to keep people in poverty is anyone’s guess. Is it because it’s championed by the left?

 

Are you saying that minimum wage should always result in abject poverty?

 

No one works for zero, so that's a silly argument.

You can definitely escape poverty on a low income, but NO ONE will escape poverty if they spend every spare cent on consumables.

Like I said, the agenda is clear. Keep the poor, poor .. and increase profits to the rich.

 

Anecodotal? Check your socio-economic stats. You'll find non-white migrants are outpacing white people right across the West.

 

I can’t check the stats from which you draw your experience when you ignore any request for that information.

 

The mechanics are not difficult to extract. Break it down, you'll find I'm right.

If you pay more with the expectation (based on professed knowledge of cultural habits) that more will be spent, then you have a clear agenda. You are seeking to boost capitalist profits, at the expense of those who can least afford to spend.

FTR, I'm a Leftist.

 

Check American stats, if you like. It's all there.

 

So the answer is to pay less to remove all choice? Paying more benefits those who wish to spend and those who wish to save alike. Poverty would there by be a choice instead of a forced living condition.

 

How about you present them since you’re so sure they back your augment?

 

Anyone who is an employee and subject to asymmetric information should quit being an employee and simply produce their value on their own, as a sole proprietor. That way, they'll be better off because they will be able to keep 100% of their labor value.

 

They shouldn't. They should quit and produce value directly to customers themselves, as a sole proprietor. That way they can keep 100% of their labor value.

 

Where did I say that? I never offered a solution, that's not my purpose in this thread.

I'm pointing out the sinister motives of those who champion an increase predicated on the assumption that it will be spent. It's very clear that their interest is not in helping the poor, but in helping the rich. Spending has never helped the poor, but always helps the rich.

 

They'll claim there is some mysterious force preventing them from doing so.

 

Well they'd be hard-pressed to say what would prevent a worker from quitting working for an evil corporation and selling his value directly to customers so that he can keep 100% of his labor value. It would obviously be much more lucrative to keep 100% than have a portion of his labor value stolen by the evil corporation.

 

It's the invisible hand, dontcha know!

AKA, "I prefer my clock on/clock off job, and my weekends free"

 

Well nobody here is going to argue that a worker would rather have his labor stolen by an evil corporation than keep 100% of it himself. That would be stupid. Why would a worker just hand his labor value over to an evil corporation when he can keep 100% of it and sell it to customers directly?