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

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

Right. So it won't matter if prices are higher because people will have more money to spend? Do you not see the tail-chasing there?

inflation happens anyway. or, is the right willing to sacrifice any pay increase, merely so prices won't go up.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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

same if any price is raised. People cant afford to buy as much.

except people who are making fifteen dollars an hour, minimum.

they make $15 and those who lose their jobs because they are not worth $15 are poorer so no net benefit is possible for stupid Lib marxist intervention. IF you want higher wages you must encourage new inventions. Do you understand?

that is why we need to correct for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. do you now understand, dear?

 

[danielpalos]

a work or die ethic is unnecessary in modern, corporate welfare times.

its unnecessary only if you don't mind paying for a guy to loaf around while you work to support him!

you do that anyway; why not do Your job better and not worry about others, unless you are getting paid for it dear. don't be so socialist when you claim to subscribe to Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Public policy does that, merely to have the poor work harder so the rich can get richer faster.

Public policy does that

Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.

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?

 

[dblack]

Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

Right. So it won't matter if prices are higher because people will have more money to spend? Do you not see the tail-chasing there?

inflation happens anyway. or, is the right willing to sacrifice any pay increase, merely so prices won't go up.

You're dodging the obvious contradiction in your argument.

I don't know what 'the right' wants. I'm opposed to authoritarian government dictating wages.

 

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

Right. So it won't matter if prices are higher because people will have more money to spend? Do you not see the tail-chasing there?

inflation happens anyway. or, is the right willing to sacrifice any pay increase, merely so prices won't go up.

You're dodging the obvious contradiction in your argument.

I don't know what 'the right' wants. I'm opposed to authoritarian government dictating wages.

even minimum wages? no one is claiming the rich cannot get richer, as fast as they want. we merely need standards and better government to avoid the problems true forms of capitalism have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you think what you have left over after you pay for rent, food, utilities and other misc things from your welfare check will allow you to become a millionaire in the stock market?

Wow

the Only problem with EBT cards now, is they can't be used with financial planners. Only the right, never gets it.

Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?

depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Boss has the power to keep national, hell, global wages, low?

Public policy does that, merely to have the poor work harder so the rich can get richer faster.

Public policy does that

Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

And we should end the failed war on drugs but not to give the money to lazy fucks like you but to lower the tax rate so people who do work can keep more of their own money

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

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

 

[hadit]

The poor that have jobs, that is. There would be fewer that actually have jobs at the higher wage.

There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.

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.

Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.

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.

 

[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?

Anyone with two functioning brain cells cares, because we're making it harder for the unexperienced and unskilled to get jobs at all. There was a time when a teenager could get a job at a gas station pumping gas. Not any more. Soon they won't be able to get a job flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant. As we drive the MW higher, we lose the kinds of jobs these kids need to break into the job market.

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.

Perhaps if you moved into the 21st century, you would understand more. We don't use horses like we used to. You don't want to work? You don't have to, just don't expect everyone else to pay your bills.

 

[danielpalos]

the Only problem with EBT cards now, is they can't be used with financial planners. Only the right, never gets it.

Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?

depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Public policy does that, merely to have the poor work harder so the rich can get richer faster.

Public policy does that

Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

And we should end the failed war on drugs but not to give the money to lazy fucks like you but to lower the tax rate so people who do work can keep more of their own money

ending the drug war lowers our tax burden. only the right, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.

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.

Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.

yes, it would. it will increase demand in the long run, since the poor will be spending at the new minimum wage level.

The poor that have jobs, that is. There would be fewer that actually have jobs at the higher wage.

There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Anyone with two functioning brain cells cares, because we're making it harder for the unexperienced and unskilled to get jobs at all. There was a time when a teenager could get a job at a gas station pumping gas. Not any more. Soon they won't be able to get a job flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant. As we drive the MW higher, we lose the kinds of jobs these kids need to break into the job market.

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.

Perhaps if you moved into the 21st century, you would understand more. We don't use horses like we used to. You don't want to work? You don't have to, just don't expect everyone else to pay your bills.

i don't expect anyone to pay my bills but me. all it takes is an income. we have laws. why be illegal to our own laws and claim you are not really like that, afterward.

anyway, if you don't like it, you can always suggest your employer hire more people, so they won't be on unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it would. it will increase demand in the long run, since the poor will be spending at the new minimum wage level.

The poor that have jobs, that is. There would be fewer that actually have jobs at the higher wage.

There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?

depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.

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