Federal minimum wage rate

[jonny5]

Hmm… which is it? Does having a federal MW make wages higher or lower?

Both. It sets a artificial floor which allow employers to pay less than they would have otherwise and also more than a person is worth. And adds regulatory overhead too.

Because everyone is different. One size fit rules do not work. Centralized regulation of individual agreements do not work.

 

[noonereal]

If there were no federal minimum wage, states will still be free to set their own minimum wage.

States are free to now. The Fed simply sets the minimum.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Both. It sets an artificial floor which allow employers to pay less than they would have otherwise and also more than a person is worth. And adds regulatory overhead too.

Because everyone is different. One size fit rules do not work. Centralized regulation of individual agreements do not work.

More nonsense.

 

[jonny5]

More nonsense.

Go **** yourself.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Go **** yourself.

Goodbye.

 

[jonny5]

The minimum rate has a greater effect upon lower, and a lesser effect upon higher wage rates. To the extent of its purchasing power, the federally enforced minimum wage rate certainly effects wage rates below our nation's median wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn

And also causes inflation and job loss. We've seen it time and time again. Wage goes up, prices go up, youre right back where you started, except maybe you got replaced by a robot.

Worries about inflation didn't stop voters from approving minimum wage increases

A minimum wage increase passed in Nebraska and appears to have done the same in Nevada. In D.C., tipped workers will get a possibly unwelcome increase as well.

reason.com

 

[Peter]

And also causes inflation and job loss. We've seen it time and time again. Wage goes up, prices go up, youre right back where you started, except maybe you got replaced by a robot.

Worries about inflation didn't stop voters from approving minimum wage increases

A minimum wage increase passed in Nebraska and appears to have done the same in Nevada. In D.C., tipped workers will get a possibly unwelcome increase as well.

reason.com

There are countless studies that show a minimum wage does not cause unemployment.
The minimum wage in the UK is much higher than the US and we have record employment at the moment and it's not looking like slowing.

 

[jonny5]

There are countless studies that show a minimum wage does not cause unemployment.
The minimum wage in the UK is much higher than the US and we have record employment at the moment and it's not looking like slowing.

There are countless that show it does cause unemployment and other negatives. UK is not the US. And minimum wage is not the only factor. We have record low unemployment too and a much lower minimum wage and barely no one makes minimum wage.

Restaurants are starting to hire robots instead of people who are demanding higher pay

Americans are taking their time finding work. The longer they wait, the more it will kickstart the age of automation. Restaurants are leading the way.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Peter]

There are countless that show it does cause unemployment and other negatives. UK is not the US. And minimum wage is not the only factor. We have record low unemployment too and a much lower minimum wage and barely no one makes minimum wage.

Restaurants are starting to hire robots instead of people who are demanding higher pay

Americans are taking their time finding work. The longer they wait, the more it will kickstart the age of automation. Restaurants are leading the way.

www.businessinsider.com

If hardly anyone makes minimum wage then why would it be such a burden on business to raise it?

 

[jonny5]

If hardly anyone makes minimum wage then why would it be such a burden on business to raise it?

As I said earlier, it sets an artificial floor which allows employers to sometimes pay less than someone is worth and sometimes more than they are worth. Not to mention there are reporting and compliance costs.

 

[Peter]

As I said earlier, it sets an artificial floor which allows employers to sometimes pay less than someone is worth and sometimes more than they are worth. Not to mention there are reporting and compliance costs.

If some companies can't afford a higher minimum wage they don't deserve to be in business.

 

[jonny5]

If some companies can't afford a higher minimum wage they don't deserve to be in business.

Irrelevant. If someone chooses to work for a lower wage, they should be free to do so. The market is better at determining wages than govt, which given the fact almost no one makes minimum wage, proves the case. There is no point to minimum wage.

 

[Peter]

Irrelevant. If someone chooses to work for a lower wage, they should be free to do so. The market is better at determining wages than govt, which given the fact almost no one makes minimum wage, proves the case. There is no point to minimum wage.

Yes, because companies don't ever take advantage of employees at all.

Saying the market is a good way to set wages completely ignores the entire history of them screwing people at every opportunity if they aren't regulated.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

$7.90 and cease the employer FICA contribution, showing the full 15.3% deducted from the employees pay.

Employee pay is deducted from taxable income anyway, so really all you would achieve is to move the money into the HIGHER taxed corporate income.

Personally I'd zero out FICA completely. It's a tax on jobs, and its a flat tax at best. Anyone on $7.25 should not be paying ANY tax.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Irrelevant. If someone chooses to work for a lower wage, they should be free to do so. The market is better at determining wages than govt, which given the fact almost no one makes minimum wage, proves the case. There is no point to minimum wage.

People don't always have a choice. If they did, do you think ANYONE would choose to work for a lower wage, as opposed to a higher one?

The fact that only 1% or so of workers get minimum wage is BECAUSE minimum wage is now so low in real terms. Republicans have succeeded in making it practically irrelevant, by freezing it since 2009. That is NOT an argument for abolishing it. The higher it is raised, the more workers benefit and that IS including some who would be made unemployed.

Your economic model assumes that people work for the most they can get, because they have no choice. Mine would provide unemployment insurance to anyone who can't get at a job at minimum wage or higher. If government does not compensate the losers of the employment market, then government is endorsing a system of slavery. The minimum wage should be high enough that people can live well enough with no more than 40 hours of work a week. Because that second job ... is slavery.

 

[Individual]

Employee pay is deducted from taxable income anyway, so really all you would achieve is to move the money into the HIGHER taxed corporate income.

Personally I'd zero out FICA completely. It's a tax on jobs, and its a flat tax at best. Anyone on $7.25 should not be paying ANY tax.

Nor should those who pay no tax have ANY say in government?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Nor should those who pay no tax have ANY say in government?

We don't give high tax payers more say in government (at least we SHOULDN'T) so there is no reason to set some lower limit below which they don't even get a vote. What you've got there is a POLL TAX and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

ALL THE GOVERNED get a say in government, and their relationship to the private sector is IRRELEVANT.

 

[Individual]

We don't give high tax payers more say in government (at least we SHOULDN'T) so there is no reason to set some lower limit below which they don't even get a vote. What you've got there is a POLL TAX and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

ALL THE GOVERNED get a say in government, and their relationship to the private sector is IRRELEVANT.

Makes one wonder why the founders created a democracy.

 

[jonny5]

Yes, because companies don't ever take advantage of employees at all.

Saying the market is a good way to set wages completely ignores the entire history of them screwing people at every opportunity if they aren't regulated.

Employees take advantage of companies. So what? They are both free entities who can make their own decisions. No one is forced to hire or work.