Let's see:
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2013
Total in U.S. age 16+ paid an hourly wage: 75,948,000
Total paid at or below Federal Minimum wage: 3,300,000
Full time at or below Fed Min wage: 1,173,000
Part time at or below Fed Min wage: 2,125,000
Note that these are based on wages only and do NOT include tips or commissions. Considering that 1,540,000 at or below min wage work in "food preparation and service," 228,000 in "personal care and service," and 477,000 in sales, there really aren't that many people making the pure federal minimum wage. And add in how many are teenagers or supplemental income...and what exactly is the reason we nee to raise it so much?
So the unions can get an automatic raise...
Unions...Unions...Unions....But don't be concerned about the single mother raising two kids on $7.00 an hour...Better for the 1% to keep those wages down.
Well the facts and figures do not support your far left programmed rant.
Also the federal Min wage is 7.25/hr. If you are going to post far left propaganda at least get your numbers right.
Also single mothers in this arena can get government assistance in the form of food stamps other government/state breaks.
Thus once again showing the far left rants are nothing but programmed talking points not based on any real facts.
This pattern [efficiency wages] also appeared when economists at Goldman Sachs conducted a simple evaluation of the impact of these state minimum-wage increases in 13 states that increased their minimum wage on January 1 and found that the states where the minimum wage increased had faster employment growth than the states where the minimum wage did not change this year. In fact, the 13 states that raised their minimum wage at the beginning of 2014 saw employment increase by 45% more than the 37 states that did not increase their minimum wage, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
If I haven't explained the 'virtuous cycle' directly to you, it's been explained enough on this M/B, that unless you have a learning disorder you surely would have at least picked up the concept via osmosis by now...? In simple terms the virtuous cycle is a beneficial cycle of circumstances, each circumstance having a positive effect on the next circumstance.
When you claim "the facts and figures do not support your far left programmed rant.",
you have facts and figures to back up your claim - right? Right?
I know how you Republicans hate actual-facts-and-figures but check out the empirical data below...
The Numbers Are In: States With Boosted Minimum Wages See Boosted Employment
Marcos Da Silva
July 7, 2014
The argument Republicans often use against raising the minimum wage is simple: A higher wage makes it more expensive for firms to hire workers. Republicans have adamantly rejected proposals to raise the minimum wage based on that argument, claiming that higher labor costs will lead to higher unemployment.
The only problem with this position?
<snip>
The data clearly show that the Republican argument against raising the minimum wage is a gross oversimplification.
An oversimplification offered by partisan conservative dilettantes that uses an unrealistic, theoretically isolated economic model that only exists in the most superficial economics courses, before one graduates to more nuanced and sophisticated perspectives on monetary and fiscal matters.
The fact is that, while job losses from moderate increases in the minimum wage may occur, these losses are small compared to the number of people who would benefit substantially. This is because a minimum wage increase is much more likely to affect low wage workers in a positive way than a negative one.
The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office found in its report on t
he effects of a minimum-wage increase that while 500,000 low-wage jobs might be lost as a result of raising the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and then indexing it to inflation, 24.5 million workers would benefit from the increase: 16.5 million directly and an additional 8 million indirectly.
That’s 49 people who benefit for every job lost.
How could this be? Well, it all has to do with efficiency wage theory.
[see Costco]
The idea is that paying workers a higher wage may lead to increased productivity from the worker. If a worker gets a relatively higher wage, he may feel more loyal and devoted to the company. With a higher wage, he may also fear being made unemployed and so will work harder to make sure he keeps his job. Therefore, although the firm pays more, they get more productivity from their workers.
Essentially, the higher productivity caused by the higher wage absorbs the higher labor cost. If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour — three times what it is now. Randy Garutti, the chief executive of Shake Shack, said “the No. 1 reason we pay our team well above the minimum wage is because we believe that if we take care of the team, they will take care of our customers.”
So far, Shake Shack has achieved better service from their higher-paid staff, as well as less turnover. That means better customer care, fewer vacancies and lower training costs — all productivity gains that absorb the higher wage costs.
This virtuous cycle effect is described in the research of economists David Card and Alan Krueger, the former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, showing that increases in the minimum wage increase employment.
<snip>
A fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers, yet a fundamental flaw of capitalism is its dependence on consumption, which in turn depends on workers having money. An economy that increasingly concentrates wealth in the top 1 percent cuts into the level of consumption that could be achieved with a more equitable distribution of wealth.
This is because one tremendously rich individual, who makes a thousand times the salary of the average individual, still only generates the consumption of one rich person versus that of 1000 people — such wealth concentration thus impedes the flow of wealth cycling through consumption.
On the flip side...
<snip>
.
..... 
you are so full of 
