Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
I believe the my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt
You claimed ending the minimum wage would cause a race to the bottom.

You've provided zero proof.

You can't even prove that a $10/hr worker would be harmed, let alone all workers under $19/hr.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom.

The bottom is what people will work for, not $1/hr or less. ...
ToddsterPatriot, why did you quote, Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom? Are you refuting that statement?

Job applicants and employees are motivated by various degrees of wants, or needs, or desperation. There are factors that Job applicants and employees take in consideration that would increase their “asking prices”. They usually consider costs and/or degrees of inconveniences, and/or displeasure relative to showing up and performing the job.

But Job applicants and employees are motivated by various degrees of wants, or needs, or desperation.
If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour. My question is what minimum purchasing power rate do you contend would be the least acceptable by job applicants?

I’m confident that it would be less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
... Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom.

The bottom is what people will work for, not $1/hr or less. ...
ToddsterPatriot, why did you quote, Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom? Are you refuting that statement?

Job applicants and employees are motivated by various degrees of wants, or needs, or desperation. There are factors that Job applicants and employees take in consideration that would increase their “asking prices”. They usually consider costs and/or degrees of inconveniences, and/or displeasure relative to showing up and performing the job.

But Job applicants and employees are motivated by various degrees of wants, or needs, or desperation.
If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour. My question is what minimum purchasing power rate do you contend would be the least acceptable by job applicants?

I’m confident that it would be less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, why did you quote, Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom?

You said it, didn't you?

If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour.

If you think some will.....how many? Why?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, I posted, and you quoted my statement, “Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom”.
Why did post a response quoting the statement without accompanying any comment that you explained or implied as being directly relative to the statement?

Did you mean to refute the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
What was your intended point when you then posted the statement? Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, ... I’m confident that it would be less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. ...
If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour.

If you think some will.....how many? Why?
ToddsterPatriot, my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
I believe the my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt
You claimed ending the minimum wage would cause a race to the bottom.
You've provided zero proof.
You can't even prove that a $10/hr worker would be harmed, let alone all workers under $19/hr.
Toddsterpatriot, regarding the justification of minimum wage rate laws, and to our specific points of disagreements:
... What’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and who are people of reasonably good judgement are to some extents, subjective questions.

I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt. There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. …
Respectfully Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, I posted, and you quoted my statement, “Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom”.
Why did post a response quoting the statement without accompanying any comment that you explained or implied as being directly relative to the statement?

Did you mean to refute the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
What was your intended point when you then posted the statement? Respectfully, Supposn
I posted, and you quoted my statement, “Eliminating the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom”.

No definite bottom doesn't mean people will work for $1/hr or that people currently making $10-$19 will see a reduction in earnings.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, ... I’m confident that it would be less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. ...
If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour.

If you think some will.....how many? Why?
ToddsterPatriot, my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. Respectfully, Supposn
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour,

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?

Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
I believe the my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt
You claimed ending the minimum wage would cause a race to the bottom.
You've provided zero proof.
You can't even prove that a $10/hr worker would be harmed, let alone all workers under $19/hr.
Toddsterpatriot, regarding the justification of minimum wage rate laws, and to our specific points of disagreements:
... What’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and who are people of reasonably good judgement are to some extents, subjective questions.

I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt. There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. …
Respectfully Supposn
It's obvious you haven't made your case.
If you were right, huge numbers of our workers would be earning minimum wage,
not less than 2%.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
2,423
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
ToddsterPatriot, ... I’m confident that it would be less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. ...
If there’s no longer any legally enforced minimum wage rate, you contend no applicant, or statistically effectively no applicant will accept $1 per hour.

If you think some will.....how many? Why?
ToddsterPatriot, my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, and I do not care to speculate as what the “bottom” purchasing power would be. Respectfully, Supposn
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour,

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?

Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
Still not the point; how does your plan engender an Institutional upward pressure on wages sufficient to meet or beat the average rate of inflation. Simply removing the goal post for a minimum wage for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism is not any form of solution. Full employment of resources in any given market is what we are looking for as a return on that socio-economic investment.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
2,423
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
Anyone who only needs the income available on a part-time basis; something convenient and close to home is usually better. But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation? In other words and in a different example depending on the accounting method, part-time employment could be considered a percentage of otherwise full time employment considered customary and usual for any given market segment; the equivalent to three or four dollars an hour if that individual were otherwise employed on a full time basis for that actual dollar amount.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean no need for statutory minimum wage laws since the potential labor market participant would not be required to work in an at-will employment State. No minimum wage could mean a few hours of simple tasks for the hourly amount. If someone only needs to work a few hours for extra-money they may be in a better position to negotiate other intangibles such as convenient hours, any potential fringe benefits that may be available, etc.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
Anyone who only needs the income available on a part-time basis; something convenient and close to home is usually better. But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation? In other words and in a different example depending on the accounting method, part-time employment could be considered a percentage of otherwise full time employment considered customary and usual for any given market segment; the equivalent to three or four dollars an hour if that individual were otherwise employed on a full time basis for that actual dollar amount.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean no need for statutory minimum wage laws since the potential labor market participant would not be required to work in an at-will employment State. No minimum wage could mean a few hours of simple tasks for the hourly amount. If someone only needs to work a few hours for extra-money they may be in a better position to negotiate other intangibles such as convenient hours, any potential fringe benefits that may be available, etc.
But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation?

Working for some wages earns you more money than not working for no wages.

Unemployment compensation for.....

Sitting on your ass and never working......not gonna happen.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,592
Reaction score
2,135
Points
1,100
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway.
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax and those unemployed by it ,because they are not worth the minimum wage, require more welfare and policing. Thus there is no net benefit.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway.
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax and those unemployed by it ,because they are not worth the minimum wage, require more welfare and policing. Thus there is no net benefit.
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax

At a maximum 12% rate.

And the corporation who pays the higher wage pays less tax, at a 21% rate.

As usual, danny can't do the math.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
ToddsterPatriot, your doubting there are now many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour. If opponents of a minimum wage rate believe that very few people will accept a wage of $3 per hour, why are they so opposed to a minimum wage rate?

If USA’s minimum wage laws were eliminated, I do not care to speculate as to how much less than $3 per hour could become the minimum rate within any of USA’s labor markets.

If USA’s minimum wage law were eliminated, I’m confident that more low-wage jobs would be created, and many more applicants for those low-wage jobs will not be suitable to hire for whatever low-wage rate the employs’ are willing to pay.

What I’ve just described is increased numbers of drastically lower-wage rate jobs and no reduction of applicants that are not hired. That doesn’t reduce the unemployment rates for low-wage rate workers, but it can increase those unemployment rates. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
ToddsterPatriot, your doubting there are now many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour. If opponents of a minimum wage rate believe that very few people will accept a wage of $3 per hour, why are they so opposed to a minimum wage rate?

If USA’s minimum wage laws were eliminated, I do not care to speculate as to how much less than $3 per hour could become the minimum rate within any of USA’s labor markets.

If USA’s minimum wage law were eliminated, I’m confident that more low-wage jobs would be created, and many more applicants for those low-wage jobs will not be suitable to hire for whatever low-wage rate the employs’ are willing to pay.

What I’ve just described is increased numbers of drastically lower-wage rate jobs and no reduction of applicants that are not hired. That doesn’t reduce the unemployment rates for low-wage rate workers, but it can increase those unemployment rates. Respectfully, Supposn
your doubting there are now many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour.

So how many?

If USA’s minimum wage laws were eliminated, I do not care to speculate as to how much less than $3 per hour could become the minimum rate within any of USA’s labor markets.

Because the number would be small enough that your predictions of doom seemed silly?

I’m confident that more low-wage jobs would be created,

And you think that's a bad thing?

If USA’s minimum wage law were eliminated, I’m confident that more low-wage jobs would be created, and many more applicants for those low-wage jobs will not be suitable to hire for whatever low-wage rate the employs’ are willing to pay.

Fewer of those than the current number of those not suitable at $7.25.

What I’ve just described is increased numbers of drastically lower-wage rate jobs and no reduction of applicants that are not hired. That doesn’t reduce the unemployment rates for low-wage rate workers, but it can increase those unemployment rates.

Your statement makes no sense. If 1 million new workers are hired at $6 who couldn't get a job at $7.25, that's a good thing. Workers earning more money, the economy producing more goods and services. That's a "reduction of applicants that are not hired".

You're not going to say that's bad because, for instance, 2 million people not currently in the workforce applied for those positions and that added 1 million to the number of unemployed, are you?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed.

I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers (who will all be earning wages of drastically poor purchasing power). It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, and eliminating the minimum rate would be of net detriment to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

I did state to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
... I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt. There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. …
Respectfully Supposn
 
Last edited:

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,081
Reaction score
5,537
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed.

I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers (who will all be earning wages of drastically poor purchasing power). It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, and eliminating the minimum rate would be of net detriment to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

I did state to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
... I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt. There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. …
Respectfully Supposn
the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor

But it doesn't. Factually wrong.

You can say that until the end of time, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.

I was working at Wendy's when the minimum wage went up, and the first thing they did was lay off 3 part time employees. That's the reality. I watched it happen.

How can you claim that people are better off, unemployed? How does that "Help the purchasing power of USA's working poor"?

The irony is, everyone understood this in the past. Everyone did. Everyone, literally everyone, understood in history, that the point of the minimum wage was to eliminate jobs.


In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.
A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.
In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.”

Everyone understood that the whole point of the minimum wage, was to eliminate jobs, which would shut out workers who were willing to work for less.

It didn't improve much for whites, except that by eliminating jobs for minorities who were willing to work for a lower wage, resulted in them being unemployed.

Only the modern utter ignorance and incompetence of our anti-education system we have today, are people stupid enough to believe that raising prices, doesn't have an equal opposite effect of reducing demand.

If you raised the price of milk to $20 a gallon.... would mother buy less milk for their children?

Duh... yes. Obviously Yes.

Well.... same reality exists in the labor market. If you raise the price of labor, fewer people will buy it. DUH.

This Economics One-O-Duh.

Every single research paper that has ever been written on the minimum wage shows this, even those research papers that 'support' the minimum wage.

The famous one from 1992 with PA and NJ. If you actually read the report, you find that NJ experienced more than double the restaurant closures, and the report simply excluded those numbers from the data.

Right... if you exclude the job losses from the data, then the minimum wage in NJ didn't cause job loss.... how amazing... if you simply ignore the most relevant data of all, you end up with research that supports what you want.

Not all of them were good. They found that the policy “reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent ... consequently, total payroll for such jobs decreased.” That means the total amount that employers paid to workers was less with the new minimum wage in place than projected payroll if the policy hadn’t gone into effect.​


See the problem here? Employers do not have unlimited magical money to pay employees. So instead, they simply cut hours.

Please explain to me how the minimum wage which resulted in payrolls in the city actually going DOWN.... resulted in more purchasing power for workers?

Of course you can't, because it is ridiculous. You are just wrong sir. Minimum wage has never resulted in a net benefit for society. Never.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top