Who does a $15 an hour minimum wage help?

"Unskilled' is normally defined (which means there aren't those out there who use with a different meaning) as a person who has not performed that particular job, or a job related to it, before. If you used to flip burgers for a living, and switched to making widgets, you would be considered 'unskilled', and would end up with basic wages until you have proven your ability to perform the job with competence. If they don't become competent at the job, likely they would either be let go, or stagnate on wages. If they are competent, then they get a raise.

It doesn't matter the type of work, shoveling dirt or gilding monuments, if you have performed the work and are competent at it, you are no long 'unskilled'.

While some find it beneficial to hire 'illegals' off the books, some of those 'illegals' are actually here legally under Ag Visas. Those who are here legally must be paid a minimum amount as based in the FLSA. Illegals who are off the books don't usually come cheap, and the employer's arse goes on the line if they should be found out.

Several of the examples you set forth are 'Union jobs', to which I completely disagree in the current day. The Unions had a purpose, but now laws over virtually everything a Union previously did, which makes them effectively pointless.

 

I’m saying supply and demand work in all areas of economics as long as someone isn’t jacking with them.

 

That doesn't make much sense. It's supply and demand that derives the argument for the minimum wage.

 

I’m saying you’re claim it is the metric to set minimum wage stems from socialistic leanings. It’s a fine theory it just doesn’t apply to reality. It makes incorrect assumptions about individual circumstances.

I understand the argument flat earthers make but I don’t agree with them.

 

Any minimum wage imposed on an economy is by definition an attempt to circumvent supply and demand.

 

Incorrect. The state, not civilization, is based upon thievery.

 

Bingo. The fascists don't get this point.

 

I would agree with you; but "understanding the terrain" is critical to understanding the opportunities involved.

 

Capitalists get to play within the GoalPosts established by the socialism of Government.

 

Never understood how people could conflate "state" and "government" with "civilization" and "society".

 

Maybe because of twelve years of government indoctrination?

 

And then they want us to pay for everyone to get another four at the collegiate or university level!

 

Taxes forced are the Sherriff of Nottingham's ruling class.. All taxes should be voluntary self taxing.

 

Dominators gotta dominate.

 

No,

Statist gotta state.

 

Same thing, actually. They have a lust to dominate their fellow man.

 

If everyone increases their own marketplace worth then there will be more competitors for these jobs, and more won't be able to find these jobs and employers can offer lower pay for them. If everyone become more skilled at their jobs, that wouldn't encourage employers to raise wages because the only real incentive to raise wages is high turnover. The executives at the top control how much of the economic profits go to those at the top and how much goes to workers. Since unions are nearly extinct, jobs are easily outsourced or automated, and there are long periods of higher unemployment, employers don't have as much inventive to raise wages as they used to. My income redistribution is going to workers and making up for the economic growth since the 1970s that nearly all went to the top and should have gone to workers. Taxation isn't theft and is simply the rent or fees you pay to live in a society. If you don't like it, then live somewhere else.

 

Share of all income earned.

 

Ah, a commie. Got it.

 

No.

 

Sorry, but that's naive. The main argument used for the minimum wage is that firms face elasticity in their labour supply. The minimum wage therefore is moving outcome towards what would be expected in efficient supply and demand conditions.

Of course this is consistent with the empirical evidence. Reviews show that disemployment effects, needed for your argument to be relevant, do not occur.

 

All righty then. Let me explain it a little more clearly - Not everyone progresses at the same rate or level. Not everyone wants the same job. Absolutely false on incentive to raise wages is high turnover.

For each employee hired, there is a cost. The higher the job level, the more expensive it is to hire a person. Not all positions can be promoted from within. Your view is that every employer is out to screw the employee, which is also false. Yes, of course there are some, but not the majority. The expense to hire and train, foster and expand responsibilities does not come cheap, and most employers would prefer to pay the same employee more for their work, then to gamble and hire someone new.

Current employment positions are mitigating the out-sourcing, but yes, automation is moving up - but more jobs are being created in the automation field, so there is not a net loss of employment, just the TYPES of employment.

I stand my position on income redistribution. That is ALL that is, with no benefit to the tax payer. Since countries exist where your income redistribution already exists (and fails) then perhaps that is where you should go, rather than those who disagree with your plan having to leave a country that was built on the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

 

How can you say your reality is more real than actual reality?

Long term unemployment tends to balance out because of inflation and actual supply and demand. Short term raising minimum wage results in job loss. Period. Again, on the individual level a business cannot pay over what an employee is worth. Doesn’t matter what you want the economy to look like.

There is no “expected” outcome in supply and demand. It just is. If it isn’t to your liking imposing outside forces on it is taking it outside reality and isn’t supply and demand anymore.

 

Because I'm not referring to my opinion as a businessman. I am referring to how supply and demand analysis is conducted. The theory isn't consistent with your opinion. Sorry! I'm also referring to the 'real world' empirical evidence. Disemployment effects aren't found.

The empirical evidence obviously isolates minimum wage effects. It doesn't matter the mechanism (from panel data methods to quasi-natural experiments). Statistically insignificant or positive effects are found.

The problem with right wingers is that they often go "its supply and demand, ain't it". They forget that economics maps out supply and demand in economic models. The following is a facual comment: "if a firm faces an upward sloping labour supply, it is a wage maker and therefore benefits from monopsonistic power"

 

Taxation is theft since the beginning of human co-establishment. The problem is, like the Sherriff of Nottingham story, the power to tax is the power to destroy. We locally agree to tax ourselves for local schools. We have one of the best graduation percentages that end up with 4 year college degrees. BUT we get to voluntarily tax ourselves. And we have sacrilege in our schools. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM!!!! WE DON'T HAVE A BASEBALL TEAM! We teach what is required to be successful in business and income. We are a rural school district. Our area has almost no crime. We don't have anything but a country or state police force. There were 5 shootings in the last 7 years according to the local paper. Four were strangers to our community deciding to break into homes The owners shot them. We are a well armed community!!! Our fire departments are all unpaid volunteers. No taxes for fire protection, and it survives by donations, a voluntary tax, which the $50 a year I pay VOLUNTARILY are worth it.

Voluntary taxes are the way to go. If it is important, people will support it with the $$$$, if not, it will wither on the vine.