Raising the minimum wage will also grow the size of the economy, as most of the increases will go right back into the economy in spending, rather than the saving the employers would do with a lot of the money.
Raising the minimum wage will also grow the size of the economy, as most of the increases will go right back into the economy in spending, rather than the saving the employers would do with a lot of the money.
Lowering income tax would do next to nothing to help those at the minimum wage either directly, since they pay no federal income tax beyond social security and Medicare, and little indirectly because the rich would not use the savings to promote employment or increase wages, as evidenced by results after every Republican tax cut for the rich.
You need to read some stuff.
You can begin by learning that people making minimum wage ≠ people in high school.
Why stop at $15? If all we need to do to pull people out of poverty is raising the minimum wage, why not $30/hr? $50/hr? Heck, let's raise the minimum wage to $500 per hour and we will all be rich!!
Well, if it hasn't sunk in, this $15 minimum wage only applies to Federal workers and Federal contractor employees, very few of whom are earning minimum. The nefariousness of the EO is that it is really a bonus to unionized workers, because many union pay scales are tied to the minimum wage and requiring that the minimum union wage be a certain amount higher than the prevailing minimum wage. So, if the Federal minimum wage is $15/hr all unionized workers working for the Federal government will likely see a pay increase across the board, even though most earn more than the minimum wage. Typical Democrat union payoff scheme and legal vote purchasing.
realwages wrote:
Finally a president that does something to help those that can barely feed themselves. The USA has had a minimum wage of 7.25 for sooo long. If you work 40 hours a week that is a grand total of $290 before taxes. Please tell me how anyone thinks they could live off that.
Curious. Why doesn't a person "who can barely feed themself" improve their ability to earn money?
why wrote:
what if they just decreased income tax instead of increasing minimum wage? Then companies wouldn't have to raise prices to make up for losses due to increased employee costs.
Your statement is very osmium-like. Not only are they not paying income tax, they are probably getting an Earned Income Credit.
why wrote:
what if they just decreased income tax instead of increasing minimum wage? Then companies wouldn't have to raise prices to make up for losses due to increased employee costs.
Do you mean guaranteed income? Meaning they get mailed checks. Most people who make minimum wage pay almost zero in taxes. The minimum wage is $14,500 per year full time.
realwages wrote:
Finally a president that does something to help those that can barely feed themselves. The USA has had a minimum wage of 7.25 for sooo long. If you work 40 hours a week that is a grand total of $290 before taxes. Please tell me how anyone thinks they could live off that.
If you have job that pays $7.25 it isn’t meant for someone that is providing for themselves solely. Find a better job....
briswiss wrote:
realwages wrote:
Finally a president that does something to help those that can barely feed themselves. The USA has had a minimum wage of 7.25 for sooo long. If you work 40 hours a week that is a grand total of $290 before taxes. Please tell me how anyone thinks they could live off that.
If you have job that pays $7.25 it isn’t meant for someone that is providing for themselves solely. Find a better job....
Liberals think the world owes them something, which is why all their policies tend to involve stealing from somebody else.
Minimum wage will always be equivalent to the cost of one Big Mac value meal. If McDonald's must pay burger flippers $15.00 per hour, they will then charge $15.00 for said Big Mac. I, however, will not pay $15.00 for a sh#tty hamburger, so that burger flipper's services will no longer be required. This is a bachelor's degree in economics, slightly condensed.
I can't reconcile allowing a $15 minimum wage and unrestricted immigration. The Democratic Party needs to work this out.
If you think we should hike the minimum wage right now, presumably you think supply curves are pretty inelastic and thus fairly vertical. That is, some increase in price for the inputs will lead not to much of a drop in output and employment, maybe none at all. The supply curve is fairly vertical.
Do you favor a minimum wage hike, but also think a lot of immigrants to this country won’t lower real wages by very much if at all? The latter view would seem to imply a fairly elastic demand for less skilled labor. (The new labor can be absorbed into the market with only a small price change.)
Are your assumptions about elasticities consistent there as well?
Paradoxical wrote:
Tatar wrote:
As a business you have labor costs which are the same as any other supplier cost. Most businesses rely on other businesses. If one of your suppliers increases the wholesale cost of their product you wouldn't complain would you? That other business has their own bills to pay too and you'd respect it. You either pay it or find alternatives.
Isn't this what's happened here? Workers have decided $15 is the minimum cost for their supply of labor; they've looked at economy and have determined they are underselling their product. If you can't pay your bills get out of the fire and make room for businesses that can. The alternative is to operate with less staff and be more efficient. Isn't this just super-charged market forces and should result in better businesses?
They do have negotiating power, they're just using methods you don't approve of. If they seek a minimum that ALL workers will not negotiate below, they negotiate with the company on more equal terms. It's an agreement not to undercut each other.
I can see the argument you're trying to make but it's not true because workers haven't decided anything, this is the government imposing a minimum wage irrespective of the free market or any mutual agreement between employees and employers. The argument for minimum wages is to make sure employers are paying their employees enough to keep up with inflation, which is all fine and good except some jobs or employees do not produce enough labor equal to the minimum wage, which forces companies to make cuts in order to ensure they don't lose money.
I'm not sure you can say it's government bureaucrats. The unions, representing workers, have campaigned for $15 for some time. Numerous Democrats have spoken in favor and were elected, and even direct votes took place in FL and Portland, ME. It's close to a worker's decision as you're going to get.
Why should there be a minimum wage at all? If I'm legally allowed to sell a box of cookies for any price I want, why shouldn't I be able to do the same with my labor? People often claim that the minimum wage should be a "livable wage," but who decides what a livable wage is? I would argue that even $15/hour isn't a very good wage in many parts of the US, but that doesn't mean the government should step in and stop someone from selling their labor for whatever price they desire.
Another pointless EO. The Biden administration probably knows a $15 minimum wage is a stupid idea, so he writes up an executive order that has the words "fifteen" and "minimum wage" in it so progressive dupes will get off his back.
Disgusted wrote:
Minimum wage will always be equivalent to the cost of one Big Mac value meal. If McDonald's must pay burger flippers $15.00 per hour, they will then charge $15.00 for said Big Mac. I, however, will not pay $15.00 for a sh#tty hamburger, so that burger flipper's services will no longer be required. This is a bachelor's degree in economics, slightly condensed.
I live in a small Midwest town. The starting pay at the McDonald’s is currently $14.
Paradoxical wrote:
Comeon wrote:
This is such a terrible argument. Minimum wage jobs do not exist as stepping stones or learning experiences. These jobs exist because businesses have a need for workers and want to pay the bare minimum to maximize their profits. There is nothing altruistic about it.
Additionally, in what fantasy land do you live if you think that its only HS students working these jobs? Real people with real bills who work 40 hours a week deserve to be able to survive.
Companies are not charities or an extension of the welfare state and people are not paid what they "deserve" (who decides what people "deserve" and how?), they are paid by what workers and companies agree upon. Wages are negotiated by the workers and firms, and only through negotiation are wages decided. Minimum wage jobs are valued at the minimum is because they require next to no skill, thus there is a high supply of workers able to fill those positions. If the worker felt they were not paid enough and could get more elsewhere, they could choose to negotiate their wage or go somewhere else. However, low skill jobs will be easily filled so the worker has almost no negotiating power - thus the job will stay at that wage until the company can no longer fill the position at minimum wage.
Glad I could clear things up for you.
The 19C called. It wants its economic logic back.
If "companies are not charities" and wages are determined by free and fair "negotiations" between people who own productive resources and people who own nothing but their capacity to labour, why can't companies simply "negotiate" with, say, children over things like wages and working conditions, letting them take it or leave it?
In other words, why is the wage contract regulated in any way at all? The answer: The minimum wage, like other basic limits on property owners right to do whatever they want, is simply a regulation that (at least in theory) says you can't run a business if you can't afford to pay workers at least the cost of their self-reproduction, or at least according to some standard of basic civility. Unregulated wages simply encourage the worst kinds of businesses-- i.e. business that are incompatible with decent, settled, human life. If a business can't afford to pay a living wage, it is simply not viable and should step aside and leave the market to companies that are efficient enough to do so. This is the general message of ALL such regulations, including around safety, health, and the environment.
Whole economies that have become dependent on the largely unregulated use of human labor eventually exhibit signs of advanced social morbidity, including epidemics of violent mass delusion (sound familiar?). The US is in need of a vast modernizing renovation, in which a realistic national minimum wage (which would have the effect of increasing wage levels general) would be but a small start.
Media Lies wrote:
Comeon wrote:
This is such a terrible argument. Minimum wage jobs do not exist as stepping stones or learning experiences. These jobs exist because businesses have a need for workers and want to pay the bare minimum to maximize their profits. There is nothing altruistic about it.
Additionally, in what fantasy land do you live if you think that its only HS students working these jobs? Real people with real bills who work 40 hours a week deserve to be able to survive.
Wages should be commiserate with things like skills needed, education (high school, college, trade school, apprenticeship, etc.) and experience. Minimum wage jobs do not require any of those things. If someone wants to earn more money then they need to better themselves through getting more education or skills.
Certain jobs don't warrant more pay just because workers need more money. Working at a fast food restaurant and almost all other minimum wage jobs don't take special skills or education. However, even in those jobs there are opportunities for people to advance into management or higher paid roles if they truly want to. Minimum wage jobs have always been intended to be entry level jobs. They have never been provide wages to live off of.
How well do you think it go over if you went and asked your boss for a raise just because you need more money? The boss would laugh you out of the office.
Most people on these boards think they are primarily the one responsible for their place in life (success). And distance runners by and large have strong work ethics and are more educated.
I went to Cornell and then Harvard for an MBA. Wasn’t the rich kid at either. That education has paved the way for me to be be try fortunate.
So I took a job at vocational school. There it hits you - the most important decision in your life is who your parents are. And that one is all luck. Note: I didn’t say only important decision.
Many people end up working min wage jobs because of their starting position. Undoubtedly better choices and luck could have helped them end up in other spots. But starting position matters massively. And those people - who also lack bargaining power btw - deserve to make a living wage. And if that means those born into a better starting position need to subsidize that some - then that’s fair. And don’t kid yourself that most laws and structures today favor those with capital, not labor.
The thing is prices vary by location. For example the local in & out where I live is STARTING pay at $19.10 per hour.
That’s CA. It doesn’t go very far due to the cost of living but would in the mid-west.
BTW that’s more than my wife, with a college degree makes in education (she’s part time).
Fully Loaded wrote:
Disgusted wrote:
Minimum wage will always be equivalent to the cost of one Big Mac value meal. If McDonald's must pay burger flippers $15.00 per hour, they will then charge $15.00 for said Big Mac. I, however, will not pay $15.00 for a sh#tty hamburger, so that burger flipper's services will no longer be required. This is a bachelor's degree in economics, slightly condensed.
I live in a small Midwest town. The starting pay at the McDonald’s is currently $14.
It was a metaphorical McDonald's but, hey, you got me.