Disadvantages of Minimum Wage Laws

[PoliticalChic]

1. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage law for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.($7.25 as of 2009) When Social Security and medial benefits are included, the wage must be considered to be over $10/ hour. This governmental intervention in the labor market makes it impossible to argue that there is a free market in this respect.

You don't get social security or medical benefits just because you're making minimum wage.

How can you not know this?

Read a book!

Although I've recognized how hard you work to find errors in my work....everyone needs hobby....

....still...you can't be so ignorant as to have misunderstood the quote you've provided.



And this:
"Payroll Tax Hike Erases Paycheck Gains For Minimum Wage Workers"
Payroll Tax Hike Erases Paycheck Gains For Minimum Wage Workers


Read a book?

It appears that you're eight pawns short of a gambit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, for another viewpoint refer to the topic
“Consequences of repealing minimum wage rates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

The consequences would be the free market deciding what each endeavor is worth....not some mental midget of a bureaucrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...
...
a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



5. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

6. Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.

7. It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
See "Race & Economics," Walter E. Williams

Political chic, refer to:
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Bad money drives out good (money from circulation")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bad money drives good money out of the market” is a generally accepted axiom.
Similarly if the price of chuck steak is artificially increased to match the price of filet mignon, filet mignon will be effectively driven out of the market place.

Your comparison of increasing the federal minimum wage rate to artificially increasing the price of lesser meat cuts is a bad analogy.


The minimum wage to some extent affects ALL of our nation’s wage rates although it doesn’t proportionally affect them all equally. The affect of the FMW’s rate upon any task’s rate is inversely related to the difference between the task’s rate and the FMW’s rate; (i.e. the less your task pays, the greater benefit you derive from the FMW rate).

When the purchasing power of the minimum rate is increased, ALL wage rates are increased but they are not proportionately increased equally. Superior labor will not be driven from the market and it will not induce superior labor to compete for lower income jobs.

Refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-

Respectfully, Supposn

"Similarly if the price of chuck steak is artificially increased to match the price of filet mignon, filet mignon will be effectively driven out of the market place."

Clearly you are clueless when it comes to the reason why filet mignon is intrinsically more valuable than chuck steak.


If you believe so strongly in minimum wage laws, please provide examples of you insisting on paying more than the stated price for goods and services.

 

[Supposn]

The consequences would be the free market deciding what each endeavor is worth....not some mental midget of a bureaucrat.

Political Chic, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is not determined by “a mental midget of a bureaucrat”. The U.S. Congress for their own political purposes determines the FMW rate.

I advocate the minimum rate should be annually adjusted to retain its purchasing power in the same manner as we now adjust Social Security retirement benefits.

[Cost/Price Indexes are determined by formula. The numbers are gathered and plugged into the formulas by non-partisan statisticians and mathematicians. It’s a mathematical determination rather than (as you implied) bureaucrat’s personal opinions].

The FMW laws do not determine the worth or compensation of any tasks nor does it intervene with independent enterprises, (i.e. with free competitive enterprise).

I would suppose it is feasible to enact an excessive minimum rate. There have been laws and practices throughout history that have functioned similarly to our FMW rate. There has never anywhere been an instance of a legally determined minimum rate of labor compensation being detrimental to the nation’s economy.

You employed the term “free market” rather than “free enterprise”. What’s a “free market”? You wouldn’t say it one where you’re free no to pay your rent or your taxes?

The FMW rate is not contrary to free competitive enterprise. The same minimum applicable to any and all tasks is not a case of government determining the value of any task. Similar to your rent, if you can’t obtain an affordable rental location, you can do without a location (if you.re able to operate from your tail gate or otherwise the existence of your enterprise is unjustified.

Unless there is a shortage of labor, job applicants and employees are far from employer’s advantageous negotiating position within labor markets.
The FMW rate’s purchasing power is beneficial to ALL wages and salaries but it is not equally beneficial. The benefit to any task’s compensation is inversely related to the difference between the task’s rate and the FMW’s rate. The FMW bolsters but does not determine any task’s wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The consequences would be the free market deciding what each endeavor is worth....not some mental midget of a bureaucrat.

Political Chic, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is not determined by “a mental midget of a bureaucrat”. The U.S. Congress for their own political purposes determines the FMW rate.

So why not admit in addition to trade, SS, FMW you want to control all wages and prices because you're a liberal mental midget with your own Nazi-like political purposes in mind who lacks the IQ to understand the beauty of capitalism??

 

[hunarcy]

[/QUOTE] I advocate the minimum rate should be annually adjusted to retain its purchasing power in the same manner as we now adjust Social Security retirement benefits.[/QUOTE]


The only problem I see with that quote is that when you adjust minimum wage, you immediately change the purchasing powere by making the products of the wage earner more expensive, thus driving up the price of the product. Therefore, you can't retain the purchasing power, you either weaken the value of your currency or you create a situation where you take away the purchasing power of the wage owner by eliminating his job.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I advocate the minimum rate should be annually adjusted to retain its purchasing power in the same manner as we now adjust Social Security retirement benefits

The only problem I see with that quote is that when you adjust minimum wage, you immediately change the purchasing powere by making the products of the wage earner more expensive, thus driving up the price of the product. Therefore, you can't retain the purchasing power, you either weaken the value of your currency or you create a situation where you take away the purchasing power of the wage owner by eliminating his job.

Very true. A liberal will lack the IQ to see the whole transaction. In this case he sees the worker with a higher wage but not the customers impoverished by having to pay higher prices or the unemployed workers who lose their jobs or don't get them in the first place. A liberal can never learn that there is no free lunch!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The consequences would be the free market deciding what each endeavor is worth....not some mental midget of a bureaucrat.

Political Chic, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is not determined by “a mental midget of a bureaucrat”. The U.S. Congress for their own political purposes determines the FMW rate.

I advocate the minimum rate should be annually adjusted to retain its purchasing power in the same manner as we now adjust Social Security retirement benefits.

[Cost/Price Indexes are determined by formula. The numbers are gathered and plugged into the formulas by non-partisan statisticians and mathematicians. It’s a mathematical determination rather than (as you implied) bureaucrat’s personal opinions].

The FMW laws do not determine the worth or compensation of any tasks nor does it intervene with independent enterprises, (i.e. with free competitive enterprise).

I would suppose it is feasible to enact an excessive minimum rate. There have been laws and practices throughout history that have functioned similarly to our FMW rate. There has never anywhere been an instance of a legally determined minimum rate of labor compensation being detrimental to the nation’s economy.

You employed the term “free market” rather than “free enterprise”. What’s a “free market”? You wouldn’t say it one where you’re free no to pay your rent or your taxes?

The FMW rate is not contrary to free competitive enterprise. The same minimum applicable to any and all tasks is not a case of government determining the value of any task. Similar to your rent, if you can’t obtain an affordable rental location, you can do without a location (if you.re able to operate from your tail gate or otherwise the existence of your enterprise is unjustified.

Unless there is a shortage of labor, job applicants and employees are far from employer’s advantageous negotiating position within labor markets.
The FMW rate’s purchasing power is beneficial to ALL wages and salaries but it is not equally beneficial. The benefit to any task’s compensation is inversely related to the difference between the task’s rate and the FMW’s rate. The FMW bolsters but does not determine any task’s wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.


2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


3 The sentimental Leftist mutters that it’s a ‘shame’ that the street sweeper is ‘underpaid’…He could ameliorate the situation by digging into his pocket, but he will not: he wants government to do it. But, he won’t ask where government will get the money, or hold government responsible for the waste and chaos it caused in the enterprise.

a. The inexcusable failure of intellect of the Liberal is in attributing to bureaucrats the talents of wisdom, patience and the capability of all discernment, when history has never indicated same. Where, one should ask, were officials actually able to determine solutions the ancient and heretofore ineradicable problems of unfairness, poverty, greed and envy?

4. Beware of the Good Intentions of Government by the Left, for it removes competition from the free market. It knows what is best…and is intent on taking from the consumer the freedom to choose between competing enterprises. And what is Freedom by the freedom to choose?


5. Equality may be barred by ability: the street sweeper may lack the ability to be a surgeon, and, therefore, not attain the wealth to be equal. Then let him work at that for which he does have the ability, or choose another line of employment which might lead him to a life closer to his vision of his deserts and to his needs. Or do his job superlatively in the hope of advancement.

a. If, by government mandate, the street sweeper is paid the same as the surgeon, why should he aspire to better his lot? John Stuart Mill writes in “On Liberty,” that any man who is rewarded equally for doing a good job or a bad job, would be a fool to put energy into its accomplishment. He would naturally withhold it, and put it where it might improve his status or income.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32.

 

[Supposn]

I advocate the minimum rate should be annually adjusted to retain its purchasing power in the same manner as we now adjust Social Security retirement benefits.[/QUOTE]


The only problem I see with that quote is that when you adjust minimum wage, you immediately change the purchasing powere by making the products of the wage earner more expensive, thus driving up the price of the product. Therefore, you can't retain the purchasing power, you either weaken the value of your currency or you create a situation where you take away the purchasing power of the wage owner by eliminating his job.[/QUOTE]

Hunarcy, the adjustment is made annually based upon the change of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power throughout the previous year. The adjustment of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate doesn’t lead; it follows the change of the dollar’s purchasing power.

The FMW rate has little significant affect upon U.S. currency’s inflation. It certainly isn’t among inflations major causes. The FMW is much less a cause and its purchasing power is much more a victim of any inflation of our dollar.

The FMW’s purchasing power doesn’t proportionally affect ALL wage rates equally; it inversely affects ALL wage rates to the extent of differences between a jobs' and the FMW’s rate. The FMW is proportionally of greater benefit to the working poor but it’s of some benefit to ALL that are dependent upon wages and salaries.

FMW’s affect upon the wealthy is minuscule but poverties' affect upon our entire economy is of some significance. Due to this change we all share portions of a larger pie.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Political Chick, historically the consequences of EVERY federal minimum wage rate increase, per capita has been PROPOTIONATELY GREATER and IN FINITE AMOUNTS LESSER among lesser earning wage and salary earners; it has been per capita PROPOTIONATELY LESS and IN FINITE AMOUNTS GREATER among HIGHER earning wage and salary earners.

For example:
if the wages of a 35 Hr./Wk., $7.50/Hr. employee is increased to $9/Hr., that employee’s annual $13,650/Yr would be increased by $2,730 to become $16,380/Yr.

There’s no law or mandate but it would be reasonable to expect (due to past experiences), that a enterprises which previously paid an employee $50,000/Yr. would prior to the enactment of this specific example, would increase such employees annual salaries by more than $3,000. Thus while the lower income earner would receive an additional $2,730 or 20%, the higher $50,000 income earners can be expected to receive in excess of $3,000 or an increase on excess of 6%.

That is historically how the real world has been working. Why would you believe that historical experience would not continue in a similar fashion?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick, historically the consequences of EVERY federal minimum wage rate increase, per capita has been PROPOTIONATELY GREATER and IN FINITE AMOUNTS LESSER among lesser earning wage and salary earners; it has been per capita PROPOTIONATELY LESS and IN FINITE AMOUNTS GREATER among HIGHER earning wage and salary earners.

For example:
if the wages of a 35 Hr./Wk., $7.50/Hr. employee is increased to $9/Hr., that employee’s annual $13,650/Yr would be increased by $2,730 to become $16,380/Yr.

There’s no law or mandate but it would be reasonable to expect (due to past experiences), that a enterprises which previously paid an employee $50,000/Yr. would prior to the enactment of this specific example, would increase such employees annual salaries by more than $3,000. Thus while the lower income earner would receive an additional $2,730 or 20%, the higher $50,000 income earners can be expected to receive in excess of $3,000 or an increase on excess of 6%.

That is historically how the real world has been working. Why would you believe that historical experience would not continue in a similar fashion?

Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage laws prevent employers and employees from conferring on the value of a particular job.

To believe in the necessity of such laws, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange.
You know what they say about one being born every minute?

Anytime you feel that there is some 'victim' of the free market who is not being paid enough, feel free to reach into your pocket and recompense same.

 

[Supposn]

Minimum wage laws prevent employers and employees from conferring on the value of a particular job.

To believe in the necessity of such laws, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange.
You know what they say about one being born every minute?

Anytime you feel that there is some 'victim' of the free market who is not being paid enough, feel free to reach into your pocket and recompense same.

Political Chick, I cannot conceive of how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job.

The U.S. congress has determined there is (if not a necessity), an economic benefit due to minimum wage laws. They passed it and it has been enacted.

Are you contending that the federal minimum wage laws exceed the extent of federal intervention beyond that of all, or most, or a significant portion of our federal laws?

I’m opposed to USA’s trade deficit but I don’t ask that you refrain from purchasing foreign goods. The law and your behavior to the extent that you’re not behaving illegally are two separate matters. Do you contend otherwise?

I know what’s been said “about one being born every minute” and I know what’s been said about Republicans. Do you know what’s been said about the recent locust infestation in Egypt? I found that also of interest?

If you contend that our federal laws are less than perfect continue to publically argue your case and I will do the same.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[lynn63]

The debate on whether to raise the minimum wage has a direct effect on the decision for expansion of Medicaid in each State. The working poor are people that earn under 15,000 a year or under 133% of the poverty level to qualify in the Medicaid expansion that is currently on the table to decide on for all states.
Every state has their own minimum wage requirement so I looked up each state’s minimum wage and I am listing the States that are above wage exceeds the 15,000 a year earned in income .
Above 15,000:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and W. Virginia.
The two states out of this list that will not expand their Medicaid are Iowa and Maine. Currently the government pays 57% (this varies from each state) for all individuals that are on Medicaid for each State. If they expand their Medicaid program the government will pay 100% for 2 years then 95% for the 3rd year, then drops by 1% each year after that.
I do not understand why the above states would expand their Medicaid program since the working poor make over the minimum wage requirements to be eligible for the State Exchange. It is the rest of the States that are below 15,000 a year earned by their minimum wage limits will have tremendous costs if they expand their Medicaid program and do not raise the minimum wage.
These States have refused to expand Medicaid so far are:
Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, S Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
The states that have decided to expand their Medicaid and have a minimum wage below the 133% level are:
Delaware, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York
The remaining states have not decided yet.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Political Chick, I cannot conceive of how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job.

conferring in this case means agreeing on value just like any buyer and seller to maximize economic efficiency. When libturd government fixes wages or prices there is no agreement, just liberal violence and a distortion of free market activity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Minimum wage laws prevent employers and employees from conferring on the value of a particular job.

To believe in the necessity of such laws, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange.
You know what they say about one being born every minute?

Anytime you feel that there is some 'victim' of the free market who is not being paid enough, feel free to reach into your pocket and recompense same.

Political Chick, I cannot conceive of how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job.

The U.S. congress has determined there is (if not a necessity), an economic benefit due to minimum wage laws. They passed it and it has been enacted.

Are you contending that the federal minimum wage laws exceed the extent of federal intervention beyond that of all, or most, or a significant portion of our federal laws?

I’m opposed to USA’s trade deficit but I don’t ask that you refrain from purchasing foreign goods. The law and your behavior to the extent that you’re not behaving illegally are two separate matters. Do you contend otherwise?

I know what’s been said “about one being born every minute” and I know what’s been said about Republicans. Do you know what’s been said about the recent locust infestation in Egypt? I found that also of interest?

If you contend that our federal laws are less than perfect continue to publically argue your case and I will do the same.

Respectfully, Supposn

"... I cannot conceive of how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job."

Well, then....let me educate you, after all, that's why I'm here.


“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.”
That’s what Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods.

But to give a local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10


Get in now?


But don't let it stop you from dropping by the jobsite an digging
into your pocket and handing out your own dough to any you see as
needing same....

...and if all the do-gooders followed suit, we wouldn't need minimum wage
laws. would we?

Better get movin'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The debate on whether to raise the minimum wage has a direct effect on the decision for expansion of Medicaid in each State. The working poor are people that earn under 15,000 a year or under 133% of the poverty level to qualify in the Medicaid expansion that is currently on the table to decide on for all states.
Every state has their own minimum wage requirement so I looked up each state’s minimum wage and I am listing the States that are above wage exceeds the 15,000 a year earned in income .
Above 15,000:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and W. Virginia.
The two states out of this list that will not expand their Medicaid are Iowa and Maine. Currently the government pays 57% (this varies from each state) for all individuals that are on Medicaid for each State. If they expand their Medicaid program the government will pay 100% for 2 years then 95% for the 3rd year, then drops by 1% each year after that.
I do not understand why the above states would expand their Medicaid program since the working poor make over the minimum wage requirements to be eligible for the State Exchange. It is the rest of the States that are below 15,000 a year earned by their minimum wage limits will have tremendous costs if they expand their Medicaid program and do not raise the minimum wage.
These States have refused to expand Medicaid so far are:
Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, S Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
The states that have decided to expand their Medicaid and have a minimum wage below the 133% level are:
Delaware, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York
The remaining states have not decided yet.

"... It is the rest of the States that are below 15,000 a year earned by their minimum wage limits ..."


You know that this isn't true, right?

There are benefits and EITC that have to be added to get a true picture.

 

[Supposn]

Political Chick, I asked how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job?
Your narration regarding Higginbottom and his carpenters doesn’t simply evade my question, it completely ignore it.

The FMW rate affects all USA wages but its effect is not proportional equal for all wage rates. The federal minimum wage had very little affect upon the wage rates of Higginbottom’s carpenters who were earning three times the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Foxfyre]

What we need in this country is:

a. The government to return to its roots in which it was ordered to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare simultaneously and not targeted groups), secure our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and then otherwise leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have.

b. Our education system to start teaching real economics again. We need to once again see labor as a cost of doing business no different than inputs, infrastructure, raw materials, taxes, insurance, and other costs of doing business to produce products or services. And labor is also a commodity that the worker has to sell to the highest bidder for that labor.

The goal should not be government requiring a certain wage to be paid, but the goal should be policies and regulation that promote full employment in the private sector. Once you achieve full employment, labor becomes much more valuable in the resulting seller's market. Employers compete for it and will pay as much as they have to pay to get it and still be profitable.

A minimum wage in an economic downturn and period of high unemployment is almost certainly going to exacerbate negatives rather than promote positives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick, I asked how minimum wage has or could ever prevent anyone from conferring on the value of a particular job?
Your narration regarding Higginbottom and his carpenters doesn’t simply evade my question, it completely ignore it.

The FMW rate affects all USA wages but its effect is not proportional equal for all wage rates. The federal minimum wage had very little affect upon the wage rates of Higginbottom’s carpenters who were earning three times the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

He clearly says that he'd hire unskilled labor to carry supplies...or dig holes....if the law allowed him to pay what that level of skill called for.


Further...I called your bluff: you won't reach into your pocket....you'd rather reach into the employer's.

 

[Supposn]

Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

He, (i.e. Higginbottom) clearly says that he'd hire unskilled labor to carry supplies...or dig holes....if the law allowed him to pay what that level of skill called for.


Further...I called your bluff: you won't reach into your pocket....you'd rather reach into the employer's.

Political Chick, Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

The federal minimum wage rate is THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr). The FMW rate certainly to some extent supports all USA wages and salaries but that’s the limit of its relativity to your narration regarding the conditions of Higginbittom’s labor recruitment problems.

Your narration regarding Higginbottom is not germane to the FMW.

I suppose you’re correct; we, (you and I) wouldn’t reach into our personal pockets for reasons no better than subsidizing employers’ net incomes.

My father was as close as I’ll ever come to encountering an angel and his son is not as altruistic.
But I would support the reduction or elimination of Medicare, (which is both economically and socially justified), if it was accompanied by the elimination of the unjustified tax reduction granted for long term capital gains incomes and the entire revenue savings were dedicated to our government promoting a better economy for my father’s great grandchildren.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/205471-capital-gains-and-income-averaging.html

Respectfully, Supposn