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

[danielpalos]

Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.

It's the value of the work that determines the pay.

LMAO General statements such as these ^^^ have no value whatsoever. A struggling business may cut jobs, a thriving business may make adjustments. A government which raises the minimum wage, may provide targeted tax incentives.

I think we should pay unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage, simply for the sake of employment at will.

Policy changes such as the one you're recommended have consequences beyond those intended.

like what? solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?

Unintended consequences are not easily predicted, or they would be vetted before changing a policy or activity. Isn't that obvious?

It is about Individual Liberty. Unintended consequences can be handled via the common law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LMAO General statements such as these ^^^ have no value whatsoever. A struggling business may cut jobs, a thriving business may make adjustments. A government which raises the minimum wage, may provide targeted tax incentives.

I think we should pay unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage, simply for the sake of employment at will.

Policy changes such as the one you're recommended have consequences beyond those intended.

like what? solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?

Unintended consequences are not easily predicted, or they would be vetted before changing a policy or activity. Isn't that obvious?

It is about Individual Liberty. Unintended consequences can be handled via the common law.

It is about Individual Liberty.

The liberty to not work and tax others to support yourself?

 

[hadit]

Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.

It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.

yes, a $15 minimum would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15. What a great way to create more unemployment and another liberal scam to correct unemployment.

so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.

They make what consumers demand and will pay for. If consumers demanded higher pay for workers and were willing to pay higher prices to get it, they would meet that demand. That's not, however, what consumers demand. Consumers demand the lowest prices possible. Thus, in order to remain profitable, companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.

Unionization is frowned upon, in some circles.

In any case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

That is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

to privatize costs by having Individuals spend their own money instead of socializing costs via welfare.

By forcing jobs to be something they are not, ie, welfare distribution centers, you're introducing unintended consequences, things like inflation and job loss. If society thinks everyone should have a guaranteed income, than society should provide that income through welfare. Like I've proposed, let society make up the difference through welfare if jobs don't pay $14/hr. That's the honest way to do it.

 

[hadit]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

like what? solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?

what does it mean to solve for poverty on at-will basis? Is this strange English or what?

it only seems strange if you have lousy reading comprehension.

it means we don't need as much welfare, as we currently know it.

Do you know TANF replaced AFDC decades ago? If you don't know about the differences you have no business discussing the issue of aid, or as you call it, welfare.

the point is, Any means testing is more expensive than employment at will in our at-will employment States. Only the fantastical right wing, never gets the "fine" point, about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.

yes, a $15 minimum would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15. What a great way to create more unemployment and another liberal scam to correct unemployment.

so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.

OK so how does a company make a better product at a lower cost when an artificial raise in wages will make everything more expensive to produce?

What you don't understand that if labor costs are raised across the board for all industries that all the raw materials needed to produce products will also go up in price. All the products used by a service business will go up in price. The employers FICA, Wokers' Comp,SUTA and FUTA taxes go up it will cost more to heat and cool the buildings more to have trash removed etc etc

all those cost increases will be passed on to the consumer

the simple answer is; all management is not created equal. some are simply overpaid. Hostess management was one example.

By who's opinion yours and your lazy ass socialist snowflake friends?




.

market based metrics.

have you lied to your stockholders for your bonus, yet?

 

[hadit]

, companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.

and lets never forget that a libcommie wants a higher minimum wage and 1001 other interventions in the economy too becuase he lacks the IQ to understand how capitalism works!!

Capitalism Only works because it is constantly bailed out by socialism.

Raising the minimum wage will have the effect of improving our Standard of living to that extent. Along with solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So why not just eliminate poverty altogether by raising the MW to $100/hr?

 

[danielpalos]

62% of American workers make $20/hr or less. All of them will demand a raise if the MW is jacked to $15/hr. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think their would be no negative effects from such an event?

yes, our standard of living will go up and we will be privatizing costs not socializing costs.

Arbitrary salary increases will not do that.

All that will happen is that costs across the board will go up while most people's incomes will not thereby resulting in a decrease in purchasing power, less demand for products and services produced by lower paying industries and less demand for those industries means less employment in those industries

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

A simple answer which is a lie of omission, and thus a half-truth. Left out of the equation are those who still live with a parent, live with a spouse who is the bread winner, and others whose main support is provided for by others.

why any welfare at all; if wages should pay more than social services.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.

It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.

only the right has no use for Capitalism. it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency, like Henry Ford.

only the right has no use for Capitalism.

Only the left totally misunderstands economics.

it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency

After your mandatory $15 minimum wage, the surviving businesses will be much more efficient.....
after they learn how to exist without $15/hour unskilled labor.

Of course unemployment will be much, much higher.
At least the surviving business owners will make more money.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages as a form of competition. The right is claiming they can't do it, due to excessive corporate welfare and too many tax holidays.

Who claims they can't do it?


The question always remains the same...its their money, they live in america the right of freedom, the right to choose.


.

the right wing; they are whining about having to have a Capital work ethic and improve efficiency to lower costs to compensate for higher paid labor. how lazy of them and what a "poor lifestyle choice" since inefficient firms will consolidate at a higher wage equilibrium.

 

[hadit]

yes, our standard of living will go up and we will be privatizing costs not socializing costs.

Arbitrary salary increases will not do that.

All that will happen is that costs across the board will go up while most people's incomes will not thereby resulting in a decrease in purchasing power, less demand for products and services produced by lower paying industries and less demand for those industries means less employment in those industries

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

A simple answer which is a lie of omission, and thus a half-truth. Left out of the equation are those who still live with a parent, live with a spouse who is the bread winner, and others whose main support is provided for by others.

why any welfare at all; if wages should pay more than social services.

They pay what the work is worth. Society arbitrarily sets the level of social services. Putting the real world market under the control of politics is has been done multiple times and has resulted in a great deal of misery.

 

[Eloy]

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

So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.

If it weren't for bad math, liberals would have no math at all.

Yes, it is simple economics that when wages are kept low, such as in the United States, the working class do not earn enough to pay much income tax, thus denying revenue for the government, and they have little or no discretionary spending power since the money goes on necessities which means that local businesses in working class areas do not have enough paying customers. (Political Economy 101)

 

[danielpalos]

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

Why can't they save? Oh yea they are liberals, don't know math, economics , finances and who not to vote for... High tax democrats



.

Food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Only a callous conservative would ask such a question.

Again I can live on $20 bucks a week in food if I wanted too. Well I hunt and fish




Shelter... Again Chicago 1 bedroom apt $1,000 a red state like SC $400



Soo as you were saying?



.

money is merely a medium of exchange, not a measure of intrinsic worth.

Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis, so we can move on to other things, than social dilemmas that have been with us, from the Age of Iron.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

so what; why so much litigation about for-cause and at-will, if it is so simple?

only the right wing, never gets it. and, they wonder why it costs so much to do business.

What litigation?
Not too many people who get laid off go to court

I've owned businesses have you? It seems to me you do not understand the costs involved in running a business not me

it is a major expense for the employment sector. for-cause and at-will would not be so litigious, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.

Sorry Bub but there is no such thing as a free lunch
Where do you think the money will come from to pay all those people like you who want to be unemployed at will?

improving the efficiency of any economy is not free; there is always some consolidation.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Why can't they save? Oh yea they are liberals, don't know math, economics , finances and who not to vote for... High tax democrats.

The people on minimum wages could eat cake.

i love Hostess cupcakes.

 

[Eloy]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

Which we have. You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you. It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.

do you always argue in a vacuum of special pleading?

we have paying paying for War on Poverty for over a generation, with no end in sight.

we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, but for right wing fantasy.

Yeah we have the richest poor people on the fucking planet right here
Tell me if people can get paid not to work like you want where will all the money come from to pay them?

simple, a more efficient economy. we don't need a War on Drugs. and welfare will not be so expensive if people can go on unemployment compensation instead.

so you want to rename welfare to unemployment and have more people collecting and you think it will cost less

wow

hung up on semantics instead of actually solving the problem? how typical of the fantastical, right wing.

never heard of a positive multiplier and growing the size of the pie, either; no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[danielpalos]

how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?

we have full employment at 4.3 % so no worries about that.

that is not, full employment. full employment means wages are outpacing inflation.

They are.

i am not your stock holder. why should i believe you? why do we have as much unemployment as we do, if scarcity of labor is a cause of inflation. we are no where near, full employment of resources in the market for labor. it is special pleading like that, that renders the right wing, literally incredible, about economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.

If it weren't for bad math, liberals would have no math at all.

Yes, it is simple economics that when wages are kept low, such as in the United States, the working class do not earn enough to pay much income tax, thus denying revenue for the government, and they have little or no discretionary spending power since the money goes on necessities which means that local businesses in working class areas do not have enough paying customers. (Political Economy 101)

it is simple economics that when wages are kept low

Kept low? Now what evil fellow has the power to do that?

which means that local businesses in working class areas do not have enough paying customers.

Do you feel that a small business with $10,000 in extra wage expenses and $10,000 in extra sales sees a net benefit?

 

[danielpalos]

no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.

Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.

It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.

not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.

Yeah, because profit is bad. DERP!

profit is good, but a good economy is better. Derp!

Less profit = better economy?

No profit (Venezuela) = awesome economy!!!
DERP!

it depends on the application; dragons and the one percent are not very good at circulating wealth in any given economy.

only the right wing never gets it; only capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.