Restaurant Workers Lose Their Jobs Over Newsom’s $20 Minimum Wage

that is only the min wage, the employers can pay them more if they wish, no employee will demand less than the min wage

 

Sure. But because of the minimum wage reduced employment employers had an excuse not to hire minorities. And they did not.

― Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/49...trates#:~:text=“The history of,to the Economy

 

If a person buys a 30 year old mansion all that you said above does not apply. That gained wealth has since moved on. If a person buys a brand new mansion and then lets it sit for 30 years what you said does not apply. An economy is constantly moving and changing. It needs to. Putting money into a mansion and letting it sit does not stimulate an economy. It stagnates that money. Doesn't matter if its one mansion, or 100 houses. If you do nothing with that property except keep your money in it, then it is not helping the economy.

And I have no envy. I'm not a material person. Hell, I'm glad I'm NOT rich. And I have in fact defended the super rich on many occasions for 30 years against claims about "needing to pay their fair share". I make one post criticizing them and I'm hit with the "envy" card. What idiocy.

 

You put the money into the bank account of the seller who now is free to spend or invest it. A house is something that people live in or rent out deriving income. Plus the workers who invested their human capital building the house received wages which they again spent or invested and the bank which financed the construction made money for their savings account holders which they can spend or reinvest. A house is not only a place to live but also an investment. And once again supply/production precedes economic demand.

 

Seemed like you needed a refresher in econ101. Supply does not create demand. Over supply creates overstock and thus lower prices to get rid of it.

 

Sure it does. Production/supply always precedes economic demand/consumption. Someone has to grow the food before others eat it.

 

When wages rise for working people, it’s always the right wing that complains.

 

When low income people lose their jobs due to policies the left wing doesn’t care.

 

so if I start making a bunch of Beta VCRs, people will start demanding them?

 

Living in a pretty communist country (at least for MAGAs) Germany is in need for workers. Dispite the minimum wage rose 40% in eight years.

 

A market analysis precedes production.

 

I don’t understand your point?

 

Classic right-wing cognitive dissonance: You deny the existence of trickle-down economics yet are supportive of the results of a study showing that 1% of the US population has the equal wealth of the entire middle class of the US.

 

what would the market analysis tell you? Maybe it would tell you what the demand is.

 

Economics 101 in a communist-run country but not in a consumer-driven economy such as the US.

 

That's beyond my pay grade.
Maybe the answer lies in why it was created in the 1st place?

...
History of the Minimum Wage
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) set the first U.S. minimum wage in 1938. President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed it as part of the New Deal to protect workers during the Great Depression. The Depression had caused wages to drop to pennies a day for many. Roosevelt set the minimum wage at $0.25/hour. Fierce competition during the Depression forced companies to slash pay and extend hours just to stay in business.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-minimum-wage-what-it-is-history-and-who-must-comply-3306209

 

European countries are convinced that the only good healthcare system is the one that covers all, even those whose paychecks are low, and covers all costs, too.

 

And that has what to do with my post?

I never used the word demand. But for companies to be competitive in hiring workers, they need to pay the going rate or risk not having enough employees.
Or use immigrant labor.

 

That's what technology has done since man could invent things.
So what?
New jobs have always been created as technology moves workers to other areas.

 

Yet, it's been in existence for 90 years and the poor still make due.

How is it proven time and time again to hurt the poor?

 

The tree belongs to the owner of the land the tree is on.

 

Really?
Just ask the laser disc makers how well their production went, without demand. Or how production of vinyl records are today.

Or say a farmer that produces 1M tons of corn. But demand only requires 100K tons of corn.
What happens to the other 900K tons of corn?

Without demand there is no worthwhile production.

 

Exactly.
Just because some one produces 100 widgets, doesn't mean they will sell even 1 widget.

 

Ok. Just don't go bitchin when nobody is hiring and you've handed out 400 resumes and nobody is callin ya back.

 

I will agree with you if that money is held liquid in a bank. But I disagree about the mansion, new or old, real estate brokers, lenders, landscapers, maintenance people, etc. Are all funded through the money the wealth mansion owner invests.

And most wealth is not liquid, or cash. It's wrapped up in investments and real assets, all which generate economic activity.

The presumption that if we stopped building houses and forced the wealthy to spend their liquid assets we would be better off is hugely mis-guided and simply untrue.

Because your logic doesn't add up. What is the motivation?