What is a PROPER wage? Based on your output being worth 100$ per hour.

The minimum wage hurts more people than it helps.

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not it is good for corporations. Although it is death on small businesses, it has to do with the fact that what ever you set minmum wage at it will never be enough to allow you to live much more than a subsistence level. What it does do is screw over all the people who were just starting to se a light at the end of the tunnel. When minimum wage was a 1.90, it was easy to find jobs that paid 3.80 to 5.70. and about a quarter of that would cover a house payment a car payment and car insurance. The it was raised to 3.32 but it became a lot harder to find jobs that paid 6.64 or 9.96. The point sir is that minimum wage places a false floor under all other wages without actually increasing those wages by enough to recover the losses due to the inherently inflationary pressure in increasing the minimum wage. What ever you set minimum wage at a comfortable wage, one in which you aren't living pay check to paycheck, will always be 2 to 3 times more and jobs that pay 2 to 3 times more will become increasingly rare.

 

Your opinion isn't accepted by economic analysis. The minimum wage has been found to increase wages and employment. That isn't surprising, given wage making power of firms.

 

Making it illegal to hire low-wage workers results in more low-wage workers getting hired?

 

raising minimum wages increases profits, more disposable income means they will spend it on essentials, everyone makes more profit...this has been verified to work even corporate CEOs understand it...it's a win win scenario...

some business owners will struggle with it...increased wages are just like any other business expense, when expenses go up you(business owner) raise your prices, if you can't do so without going out of business then you shouldn't be in business, you're incompetent...

 

There are certainly macroeconomic effects from minimum wages. However, the bulk of any gain reflects the nature of supply and demand of labour markets. Those against minimum wages simply do not understand supply and demand. I find a level of irony in that mind you...

 

How does the low-wage worker who was previously employed but is now illegal to employ have more disposable income? He no longer has a job.

 

You don't even make sense. You can't say they are paid what they're worth, and then claim that they are paid all that the employers can afford.

 

Duh!!

No, your inflation argument just doesn't work. The small increase in wages, mostly at the very bottom, just doesn't cause inflation like that.

Plus, your numbers are hilarious. Nobody can live in an urban environment on wages such as those you use in your argument. And, our nation is not just majority urban, but moving even more in that direction.

Here in Seattle we aren't seeing inflation in cost of living due to our rather significant program of increasing the cost of living. In fact, our economy is doing very well compare to the rest of the nation.

Having government subsidize "2 to 3 times more" jobs isn't a help, either. If we're going to spend tax dollars, it should be on a project that is quite different than attempting to attract people to jobs nobody can live on.

 

NOnsense the increase historically is not small Usually more than fifty percent and it triggers further increases right on up the food chain.

 

NOBODY is proposing minimum wage increases of 50% - other than for those at the very bottom over some number of years, possibly.

And, the largest percentage gain from increases in minimum wage is obviously at the very BOTTOM, where a large percent means much less compared to average wages.

What we've found is that when wage earners have more money, the economy is stimulated. These people at the bottom are ALWAYS spending their entire paychecks. Raises immediately become direct increases in spending on housing, groceries and other retail - as well as a reduction in social safety net services.

Increased minimum wage creates business opportunity while reducing social safety net services!

Obviously, there is an adjustment period, so immediate radical change is a bad idea. What Seattle did was create a schedule of step wise increases over a many year period oriented to meeting a target that would then be tied to cost of living, allowing for business planning.

 

Of course you would rely on something previous to the actual results. Your attempt to avoid the facts noted.

 

This isn't a mature response. I've referred to economic theory. I've confirmed that theory with the empirical evidence. You don't even know what empirical evidence entails.

 

Orthodox technocrats think an economy should be based on the measure of energy. Goods should be priced on the energy it takes to produce them. Workers should be payed with an energy-based currency based upon their contribution to the energy of the system. Farmers and innovators would be well payed. Speculators and politicians would be starved. The problem is, the complexity of implementing such a system is prohibitive because there are countless variables that are difficult, if not impossible to measure. For similar reasons, it's probably impossible to accurately decide what a proper wage is in the system we already have.

 

Liberals are doing the bidding of the globalists, I just can't figure if they are doing it knowingly, or if they are too stupid to know they are doing evil.

 

Only where their are adequate choices and adequate range of prices and quality. Remember the classic Company store. " I owe my soul to the company store"

 

Basic error. The economic approach distinguishes between efficiency and fairness. The minimum wage certainly improves efficiency, as shown by the empirical evidence which shows reductions in underpayment. Fairness is more complex as we have to factor in issues such as discrimination and divide & conquer.

 

Weird comment, given classical liberalism and its traditional link with free trade. Another error methinks!

 

Our system has a serious requirement for speculation.

Anytime anyone suggests starving speculation you should cut off their air supply immediately. Plus, cutting off politicians is the same as cutting off law enforcement.

 

I agree with your last point. Mercedes cars have been engineering crap for years with a surface veneer desiged to appeal to the socially insecure.

And yes I have hiked a lot more than tweny miles a day for weeks and it didn't require $400 boots. If you need visible confirmation for your ego that is fine. Some of us are more secure in our existance.

And yes I can afford to buy anything I want. I am just not stupid enough to waste money for an ego boost that only fools the other emotionally insecure people.

 

“I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson

Actually, the forefathers so distrusted the institutions of corporations that they strictly limited charters and only for short periods of time. Having had their freedoms and rights trampled by the corporations of England, they were very aware of the dangers corporations present.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters.

You need to understand that corporations value is not in the structure that allows them to raise money, it is that they act as a shield to allow corporate officers to break laws and act immorally without fear of criminal prosecution.
Corporations have replaced the American Citizen as the masters of government both Federal and State, and we will never again be a country of self determination so long as corporations exist and are allowed to purchase government.

 

Hiking in cheap boots though? That's like being poor and voting Trump in desperate hope.

 

No they did not starve to death because of the minimum=wage
Otoh, they also did not lose their job because of the minimum wage
The in the long term, the minimum wage is irrelevant to job loss from automation
In the long run, If a job can be automated... it will be automated....


But, lets suppose that your ideal situation were adopted...ie no minimum wage
Lots of low people wanting to work for a dollar or two per hour
And lots of employers offerings work at a dollar or two per hour
Do you see any down sides?
For example.... the large number of illegal workers in this country typically work for a lower wage
And some people feel that this labor supply has eroded the wages for legal workers
Do you feel that wages will fall due to the supply of workers now willing to work for a dollar or two per hour?

 

It's up to you to develope skills that somebody is willing to pay you well for

 

Nothing to worry about.
Automation has been happening since the discovery of fire.
The population has grown since then, and there still is enough economic activity to support much of humanity.
For every job that's automated, there's a brand new industry that opens up in the mfg, sales, support and training of those automated items.

Yes, it requires those put out of a job to retrain, most can and do, but some do get left behind. Hopefully, our society realizes this and will aid those who struggle after losing a job.