Question for Minimum Wage supporters

Why not unemployment compensation, at one dollar an hour equivalent, less; for rational choice theory purposes?

 

it will bring equilibrium or reduce income inequality.

those minimum wage workers in NYC earning 50 dollars an hour will spend more in the poorer communities they live in and make them richer.

a federal minimum wage of 50 dollars an hour will be an incentive for the poor to commute into the rich areas, and then they could vote to use government force for even more equitable redistribution of wealth.

 

capitalism can exist in a protected national economy, we don't need outsourced slavery in foreign countries with no human rights for capitalism to exist.

we don't need the exploited labor of illegal immigrants for capitalism either.

capitalism would be better if it didn't need to rely on cheap labor offshore or onshore, i hear they want to build robots for automation.

 

Increasing the minimum wage to increase market share from social services will help our economy grow faster.

 

increasing minimum wage breaks the spirit of the people by making them dependent on the government welfare for survival, from the resulting loss of jobs.

tariffs and a wall for illegal immigrants gives the uneducated and unskilled American people purpose with gainful employment, because it removes cheap labor offshore and onshore that brings wages down.

 

why the same canard of last millennium? some on the left are advocating for equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, regarding unemployment compensation.

 

1) interesting the way a sweet caring liberal is so happy to see lowly Mexicans slowly starve on the other side of his wall!

2) Tariffs protect and cripple our industries , causes trade wars, and often real wars. 1+1=2

 

In point of fact there are many employers that don't give a damn about their employee either because they don't even provide enough compensation for one person to live on.

The "minimum wage" isn't about the employer's interests. It's about their responsibility.

Correcting my pervious number the median household is 2.54 people which represents two adults and one child and that creates a natural responsibility for one of the parents to care for the child while the other provides for the household needs. The employer, in using the labor of the person, has the responsibility to ensure that their employee, as the provider for a household of 2 adults and a child , receives adequate compensation to fulfill their natural responsibility to the household.

As a Libertarian I'm an ardent advocate for the "Liberty and Responsibility" of the person based upon natural rights and responsibilities.

Every person has a natural right to form a family with another adult (based upon mutual consent) and to have children. With that natural right also comes the responsibility for one of the adults to provide that which is necessary for the household while it's the natural responsibility of the other to provide for the care and raising of the child. That is a simply fact of nature.

No person has any right to the labor of another person and the employment of another person, as a minimum requirement, is that the employer provides the compensation necessary for the employee to fulfill their natural responsibilities based upon their natural rights as noted above. That is the employer's "responsibility" and if they can't do that then they have no rights at all related to the labor of another person.

Of course the following must be understood as well.

Any employer that's a competent business person can afford to pay, as a starting minimum wage, the $23.00/hr. in compensation to their employees A well developed business plan can easily provide for that expenditure of the enterprise. Only an incompetent business person is unable to provide that income and if they're incompetent then they shouldn't be in business to begin with.

As a Libertarian I'm somewhat amazed by the fact that I actually cite a statement from one of the most liberal president's in American history that's an extremely a "libertarian" argument.

FDR was absolutely correct. No business (employer) in the United States has a "Right" to pay less than what is necessary for a person (employee) to provide for their family (household) in the United States. The actions of the person are limited by what they're rights allow because actions not based upon our natural rights will violate either the Rights of another Person and/or the Rights of the Common (i.e. all people). The primary purpose of our government is to protect against the violation of our rights.

 

must be the liberal-alt-right.

 

The employer has no responsibility to their workers' families. One's pay is not based on how big or small their family is.

 

We could be solving simple poverty and the capital effects of Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, as an opportunity cost.

 

A federal minimum wage addresses all labor in the United States establishing a national minimum wage. It is the responsibility of state and local government to increase that amount if the local costs are higher than the national standard.

 

The employer has no right to anyone else's labor and every person is "worth" what it costs for their minimum-mandatory costs of living.

 

In spite of any arguments the "federal minimum wage" must be based upon a "national standard" as opposed to a local standard. If local economic costs are higher then it becomes the responsibility of the state and local government to address that difference.

 

An employer pays an employee on condition that the employee perform certain tasks. As long as both agree to this arrangement, there can not possibly be any violation of anyone's rights.

 

stupid stupid liberal concept since minimum mandatory would be just encourage increase sloth not reduce it. Do you undertand?

- - - Updated - - -

"to each according to his needs": Libmarxism death cult that slowly starved 120 million human souls to death

 

either we raise the minimum wage or the right can stop whining about the poor not paying income tax.

 

My son's company, along with many others, would go out of business if they had to pay a $23 MW. Then what?

 

It would raise the standard of living for everyone if they have to pay a national standard of 50 dollars an hour.

people would migrate to areas with the highest quality of life since they would be paying the highest wages.

 

Not to worry.

If it was an instant increase from the current federal minimum wage to $23/hr it would be impossible for many enterprises to adjust to but that's not how it would be implemented. An increase by that much requires a phased implementation over 10-15 years and any business plan can be modified to accommodate the annual increases necessary to reach that amount.

 

I would disagree and there was no rational basis for the $50/hr wage to begin with. A federal minimum wage must be based upon national statistics and not local statistics.

 

no, i don't. a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is within the efficiency wage range for some Labor.

Changes in political regimes often require "changes in demographics" to achieve a new "status quo".

 

many firms are simply not very efficient with a cheap labor model.

even the South would have to change to make a profit.

 

Would you like to give a brief summary of the link? This is not a rap battle, dropping the mike is not a valid argument.

 

Basically you are providing people with more spending money which will go into the economy and create inflation, and since we are using inflation to inflate the minimum wage it is an unending progression.