Question for Minimum Wage supporters

We're increasing to $15 in Seattle by phases to allow adjustment. Also, small businesses are getting more time than large budinesses, as it is harder for them to adjust.

Then, MW will track cost of living so we don't dig ourselves into a hole again and so wage law will be more predictabke than having high stakes political battles every few years.

Businesses don't need 10 or 15 years to adjust if care is taken in selecting an amount and planning the change.

 

In Seattle some Seattle based companies like Ivar's didn't even wait until 2021 when the minimum wage was to be officially $15/hr and almost immediately raised their starting wage to $15/hr from what I understand.

But it is correct that significant increases require phased implementation so that enterprise can adjust the business plan to accommodate the change. The greater the change the longer it takes to implement the change.

One of the over-riding considerations for the minimum wage law is that it needs to eliminate "working poverty" that necessitates mitigation with government welfare assistance. The person working full time should never require welfare assistance to fund the minimum-mandatory expenditures of their household. If they do then it represents an indirect subsidy by the government to the employer that's failing to provide the necessary compensation for labor and the only reason that subsidy would be required is either based upon the greed or incompetence of the employer.

The US government should never be subsidizing the greed or incompetence of the owners of enterprise.

 

No, it isn't. That only happens when you omit the capitalism of competition.

In any case, we already had price inflation for fuel. Only "chicken littles" keep claiming the sky is falling with their inflation canard.

supply side economics is command economics that controls for inflation.

 

If Gravity Payments can do it, why not the rest of the private sector? Was Henry Ford wrong.

 

if they raise the minimum wage the consumer price index increases and that raises the cost of living.

we need tariffs to change the economy from competing with foreign slave labor which allows for the greed of all employers, not just the poor and 'incompetent' employers who can't afford to pay higher wages.

 

We should expect change to a new equilibrium.

How will tariffs help with cheap labor?

 

higher minimum wages creates a new equilibrium of government dependency, because when the cost of living increases more taxes are needed for welfare to subsidize the higher costs for the working poor.

tariffs make it more expensive for employers to outsource jobs, which naturally raises wages in the free market without the use of government force.

also a very high wall naturally raises wages as it bans cheap labor from illegal immigrants.

 

just right wing propaganda and rhetoric. why any increases in wages at all, if it merely increases government dependency, according to the right.

fifteen dollars an hour could be benchmark Standard in our republic, and trickle up.

 

artificial increases in wages with government force only serve to delay natural market forces, immediately it will have a multiplier effect where the poor having more spending money but it would not be long lasting as the cost of living rises.

it is a political move for the poor to vote for the party that promises higher wages, when tariffs for outsourcing jobs and a wall for illegal immigrants naturally raise wages in a long lasting way by denying the rich cheap labor .

 

you realize, your statement: artificial increases in wages with government force only serve to delay natural market forces; is nothing but diversion. it means nothing. moving the goalposts is a function of Government. And, wages should outpace inflation, regardless, to promote the general welfare.

social services cost x; a minimum wage should beat x.

it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing.

 

Whatever we can get away with.

 

Tariffs are imposed by the gov't to affect prices. How is that a free market? It's not, like min wage is not a free market.
HINT: Free market is a book term only. Real world doesn't have a free market. So much for claiming to be a liberal.

 

A lot of verbose nonsense to avoid saying you want to make it whatever you can politically get away with.

If there was political support for a $15 minimum wage would you be on our side of the argument, saying it's too high? Bloody of course not, you'd get right behind them. Same if there was political support for $20, $25, etc.

When you're going to give the unemployed a bunch of stolen money anyway, it doesn't really matter what the minimum wage does to employment.

 

Absurdity...but what ever floats your boat.

 

what stolen money? you don't seem to have a problem, bailing out the rich with that same money.

 

I absolutely do. I emphatically oppose all bailouts.

Tax money. Stolen money.

 

Most full time low wage workers recieve welfare and housing assistance because they are working poor. And most win wage jobs are not full time so pretty much all win wage workers need welfare as well to survive. An advanced civilized society covers the basic needs of the neediest citizens with welfare. There is no point setting a win wage on cost of living because most min wage jobs are not full time. Welfare needs to cover the basic cost of living and every person on welfare should be required to look for work and to take any job they are capable of doing. So since these citizens are on welfare and required to take jobs they are capable of doing then there is no need for any US asparagus to be left unpicked because USA has a millions strong army of welfare dependent citizens that are capable of picking asparagus. Since these citizens already receive welfare payments and housing assistance that cover basic needs the state can require these citizens to take temporary short term work like asparagus picking - and employers that create jobs for the working poor should be encouraged by the state. The Australian government requires long term unemployed to 'work for the dole' and the idea is that employers that can take on unskilled workers and give them experience and a better change of getting employment that will get them off welfare, do not have to pay the workers. So in theory welfare recipients could be required to pick asparagus and the business would not have to pay them. In Australia we have European backpackers doing all of the picking but it would be more sensible to require longterm unemployed to do it and get the European backpackers to bring some Euros to spend in the country on their little holidays. There is some opposition to work for the dole but there would be ways to make it work. Instead of giving business free labour by required welfare workers to work for the dole the business could pay part of the award or min wage and the state could pay part which it would have had to pay anyway in welfare. Or business that take on unskilled workers can be given tax credits. The welfare worker should get a bonus in welfare while they are employed in a work for the dole scheme. By requiring welfare recipients to take any job they are capable of doing we increase the worker pool for gig economy business that need more micro entrepreneurs. Working as an uber driver or task rabbit may be micro entrepreneurial but it is also a job - and many welfare recipients can drive a vehicle and are capable of driving for uber or of doing tasks as a task rabbit. These companies can work out partnerships with the state to create many jobs while at the same time improving national infrastructure and reducing the need for public transport. Walmart already employs many if these working poor welfare recipients and it could probably employ even more under the right partnership with the state. The actual cost of welfare payments can be reduced through private-public partnership with the buying power of the state and moving away from giving welfare recipients any actual money. All welfare payments should be made onto a basics card which covers basic needs and can be used at business that have partnered with the state, and this should include a small weekly amount for entertainment - but no cash. So what would be payed to the welfare recipient would not be the actual amount that it cost the state. When do-gooders in France are making business give unsold stock to charity and with so many pushing for a living wage this public-private welfare card system is a great idea because it gives the unemployed a working wage that covers basic needs and it encourages business to create local jobs as well as locking in welfare recipients as customers of the job creators that partner with the state to support the welfare system.

It should be illegal to be homeless and anyone that refuses are is not capable of meeting their responsibilities as a welfare recipient to make sure their basic needs are covered should be put in jail and not released until they prove that they are capable of looking after themselves ( and all people in jail should be made to work ). This way ever poor citizen that would even consider taking a min wage job is on welfare apart from young people that are dependents of someone that helps cover their basic needs - or partners working a min wage job as a second job. There are very few working min wage jobs for the fun of it and the majority of them are welfare recipients. Apparently nearly 50 million Americans need food stamps to survive. The 2011 census showed that 49% of Americans get some form of government assistance. Do all of them really need it to cover basic needs? And what is required of them for receiving the assistance? In my opinion all unskilled work can be covered by people on welfare and these people depend on welfare to live so if they are required to do any work that they are capable of doing then there really isnt any need for a min wage because there is an army of welfare dependent citizens that can cover everything right down to picking the last asparagus or delivering some asparagus to your door as a micro entrepreneur. These people need welfare to cover basic needs and in return they must be required to meet their responsibilities as welfare recipients.

You need to earn about $80,000 a year to be happy in USA with cost of living so it is really a myth that all of these millions of welfare citizens are living it up and having a great time being on welfare - but many citizens are not capable of skilled work and many are in many ways unemployable - but most citizens can pick asparagus or drive an uber car and everyone can do something, even disabled people. With automation and increasing technology there will be less and less unskilled work in coming years and society will be left with a mass of unskilled and low skilled workers that will depend on the state to cover basic needs. You can look at that as a bad thing - but at the end of the day do you want your shoes shined by a robot - or by a low skilled human? Where is the fun in being served by a robot? Low skilled humans do and will continue to have value it is just a matter of putting these people where society and business need them - and if they receive welfare and are capable - then public-private welfare partnership put them to work and this way our conscious capitalist heroes are contributing to much needed budget repair with every public-private welfare job that they create. Who is the uber of shoe shining and do they need workers? I think that pretty much every citizen that depends on welfare to cover basic needs can shine a shoe.

In most ways a society is judged by how it treats its lowest citizens. The idea of having unemployment benefits that do not cover basic needs and that expire is uncivilized and dangerous. It is not min wage that needs to be set based on cost of living - it is welfare. ( It is no good arguing that costs of living vary from place to place - an average for the nation is what cities/states need to work from to provide affordable housing options for workers living and working in high cost of living areas - nobody wants to take a date back to their poor door and into their micro-apartment but society needs low skilled workers in cities and there needs to be accommodation options for them. ) There must be incentive for a welfare citizen to work as well as it being required of him so a long term unemployed that works a full weeks work needs to receive at least some bonus in his welfare payment that week. The idea of setting welfare so low that citizens are so desperate that will take jobs as uber drivers and task rabbits is not working. It is better to have a civilized society that offers all citizens the security of knowing that their basic needs will be covered by the state if they are unable to cover them themselves - but citizens should need to meet their responsibilities to uphold their end of the social contract and that means work for welfare in any job that they are capable of doing.

Instead of min wage for unskilled and low skilled work society should encourage the 'enterprise worker' to negotiate their wage with an employer themselves. This way all low skilled work is paid at the rate that workers are willing to work for it. There should be no min wage and no awards ( it would be possible for a low skilled worker to negotiate an hourly rate that gives them less for a full weeks work than their welfare benefit gives them but this will just mean no bonus - but the worker should be encouraged to do this work by requiring the unemployed to work a certain amount of hours per year to meet welfare non-military national service responsibilities that they should be required to meet each year to retain their welfare )- instead the enterprise worker should be free to negotiate their own value which may be higher or lower than some fantasy figure that is the result of collective bargaining or a state set min wage. Welfare recipients that work participate in work for welfare schemes only need to earn a small bonus in their welfare payment if welfare covers basic needs for the system to be fair. There is no reason why low skilled western workers cannot compete with third world workers if a public-private welfare system is established that requires welfare recipients to work for welfare to keep their basics card that covers their basic needs, and with this there is no need for a min wage - and we have given the leftists their living wage that they are dreaming about. Even leftists must agree that the social contract between citizen and state is a two way street and with rights come responsibilities - like taking any job that you are capable of doing if you depend on the state for welfare to cover your basic needs.

[video=youtube;xSKRLlAqhxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKRLlAqhxo[/video]

 

Inflation is not caused by increasing the minimum wage but it would create more spending that increases the GDP. The "number of dollars" in circulation doesn't increase because of an increase in wages.

Inflation is caused the expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve that does increase the "number of dollars" circulating in our economy.
.

 

Few of those living in "working poverty" are literally earning the minimum wage and even if it is true that "minimum wage" jobs related to part time work that doesn't imply the worker is only working part time. There are literally millions or perhaps tens of millions of Americans working more than one job today.

It must be assumed that a person that's working has to earn a living from their job so that they don't require government assistance.

No person working full time should ever require welfare assistance and the minimum wage must be based upon ensuring that all jobs will provide the worker with a living wage based upon a 40-hour work week regardless of whether the job is fulltime or not.

 

On a national level you are right, but on a State Level you are bringing in more dollars into circulation..it is on a state level where minimum wage is decided...unless your talking about a federal across the board minimum wage..so now back to the original question...based on what formula would a federal minimum wage be based on?

 

you don't actually want a minimum wage since that would make it illegal to hire folks who are not worth the minimum wage. A simple concept but liberals and children cant understand it.

 

or, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, and make him an entitled, dependent, Democrat. Give him a fishing rod, and make him a proud, hard working, independent Republican.

 

I think we should be open to any argument that makes economical sense, I just have not heard one that is based on concrete arguments. More so on arbitrary set of correlations.

 

very very dumb liberal idea since it would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15/hr. Plus, it would raise prices for poor people most of whom shop at places that pay low wages. 1+1=2. See why we say that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

So all the people who can't produce enough to earn the minimum should be fired?