Raise the Minimum Wage

The next thing we know you will be waving the red flag with the hammer and sickle on it. Hey Cs, guess what? Germany doesn't HAVE a minimum wage. Neither does Norway nor Sweden. And then we have Switzerland!! How, of HOW have they keep their economies going with OUT a minimum wage??????

 

That's because they have a law that unions are required to match the minimum rate. All employees are guaranteed to a monthly wage, which proves your premise false. The chancellor has admitted the union wage policy has hurt the economy tremendously, and will require a 8.50 euro wage a hour. Currently, that would be the highest in the world for a nation that size. Going by the value of the euro that is.

As for Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden, they require sums of about 2000-3000 euros be paid monthly to employees. Even business people in the US aren't required to pay every hour by the hour. Employees get their money bi-weekly, whereas those countries simply have it tri-weekly.

Needless to say, they do pay a minimum wage. Just not by the hour.

 

Forget other countries; every economy is different and is spurred by different industries. You still did not respond to my statement: "If you have minimum skills and minimum intelligence, you will be paid the bare minimum. End of story." I'd like to see one proponent of raising the minimum wage respond effectively to this statement.

 

I can find no validation to your claim they get a minimum income guaranteed.

 

Most minimum wage workers are part time. Most are not a primary provider for a family. The argument to raise minimum wage is just further sad evidence that the masses don't understand basic economics....

 

Don't increase minimum wage,

Lower the cost of living.​

Moi

Tax ​

 

How do we lower the cost of living? You can't just lower prices without also lowering costs. No, ripping off a few rich execs couldn't yield enough to lower the cost of living. When I worked for a big corporation in the 90s, our Chairman made about $2M per year. Divided equally among 125,000 employees (at that time), everyone would have made an extra $16 per year. So what's your plan?

 

a 45% increase in MW is a 45% increase in the amount of taxable income which is either more tax revenue that can be spent and/or used to pay down debt. Of course a lot of republicans support the MW increase--it is the only way to pry some tax money out of the unclean fingers of the huddled masses.

 

Government economic policy is to oppose deflation. True ?
Deflation would reduce the cost of living.
Just let your precious market forces loose.
The economy bobov is a regulated economy that protects the rich with Socialism for them that don't need it aka corporationism.


Moi

No ​

 

You're right that government policy is to oppose deflation. That's because the horrors of the Great Depression were mainly caused by deflation. Deflation lowers the cost of living only in the technical sense that it takes fewer dollars to buy things, but these dollars are much harder to come by and are worth far more than pre-deflation dollars. That's a bonanza for those with money. The rich have never been richer than they were in the 1930s. But for the multitude without much money, it's a nightmare - massive unemployment (it reached 25% during the Depression), low wages, little capital investment, little production of goods or services. So if you're, for example, a retired doctor living off the proceeds of a professionally managed securities portfolio, deflation would be heaven; for most people it would be hell. In this democracy, it's the interests of the majority that rule. Brazen of you to pretend that ours is a system favoring the rich when your only complaint is that it doesn't favor you more than it already does.

 

Raise the minimum wage.

The notion that making the wealthy even more wealthy is somehow the answer for all, isn't proven.

And in case some aren't paying attention to reality... working people need to make a living. That is, in order for society to grow and be 'HEALTHY', that must be so.

 

bobov takes the extreme position.
How about a little deflation.
Just as we tolerate a little inflation but, not Post WW1 Germany inflation; to exhibit the extreme.


Again, I say - "Don't raise minimum wage, lower the cost of living" and I showed how.


Moi

No ​

 

The CBO report said that only about 20% of the $30 billion increase in income would fall to households at or under the poverty line, while about 30% would go to households making 3 times the poverty line. Further, after figuring up the pluses and minuses the overall net effect of the M-Wage increase would be about $2 billion. In a $17 trillion dollar economy, $2 freakin' billion, yeah that'll really jump start things.

You want an example of what a increase in m-wage does? Let's look at Washington state.


For 2013, Washington’s overall unemployment rate of 7.0 percent was better than the overall national rate of 7.4 percent. For the 16 to 19 age category, however, Washington’s unemployment rate was quite a bit higher than the national rate, 30.6 percent versus 22.9 percent.

Washington’s minimum wage has been greater than the national minimum wage since 1999. In November 1998, Washington voters approved Initiative 688, increasing the state minimum wage to $5.70 on January 1, 1999 and to $6.50 on January 1, 2000. On each January 1 thereafter, the initiative provides a percentage increase to the minimum wage equal to the (August to August) percentage increase in the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. This has resulted in an increase in every year from 2001 to 2014 except for 2010.

In 1997, Washington’s 16 to 19 unemployment rate was slightly below the national value (15.8 percent versus 16.0 percent), while in 1998 it was somewhat above the national value (16.0 percent versus 14.6 percent). In 1999, after I-688 came into effect the gap between the Washington and national 16 to 19 unemployment rates expanded to 4.2 percentage points (18.1 percent versus 13.9 percent). In every year after I-866, Washington’s 16 to 19 unemployment rate is greater than the national value.


In essence, you are screwing over the very people you are trying to help. It's bad enough that the economy has been weak since the recession ended some 5 years ago, and many businesses have found ways to automate some jobs out of existence or streamline operations and cut hours and people as a result of low and inconsistent demand. Now you're going to incentivize employers to automate and streamline even further, or go out of business altogether. To suggest the m-wage increase will stimulate demand is lunacy; a few billion more in income isn't going to do squat in a $17 trillion economy.

 

Where did you show how? By calling for deflation - the thing most harmful to the interests of the middle class. Oh, but only "a little deflation"! I see. And how does one create just "a little deflation"? The method would be to lower the money supply and raise interest. But the Fed has a very poor track record at this. It has repeatedly tried to control inflation by raising interest and lowering the money supply, only to go too far and provoke recessions. The economy is too big and complex to be steered accurately; it's an inexact science.

Let me show you again a chart from the Fed. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FEDFUNDS It's a chart of the Federal Funds Rate (the main interest rate tool of the Fed) since the 1950s. Vertical gay bars are periods of recession. Notice that interest rates spiked before every recession. This was the Fed trying to do what you want - deliberately deflate the dollar "just a little." But the science is inexact, so the Fed overshot its mark and hurt the economy.

I'm sure you read that the US GDP actually shrank during the first quarter of 2014. Another such quarter would mark a new recession. This tenuous and uncertain moment for the economy would be the worst moment for tinkering with deflation.