I'm gonna take not a huge leap here and make 2 guesses
OK.
a) you've never studied economics
Not formally, but I'm not sure why that would matter.
b) you didn't read my post in which I explained why that's not how things work
http://www.debatepolitics.com/444891-post12.html (Should Wal-Mart Entry be banned.....???)
Not until just now; my reply is posted below.
If you just give a bunch of people money, the monetary effects erase enough of the benefits that to generate the effect of giving everyone the living wage you'd need to have almost 100% tax rates
Whoa, there, Nellie! Who's talking about giving people money? Why aren't we talking about why the people at the top of the economic pyramid take 90%of the wealth for themselves, leaving the remaining 10% to be distributed among those who inhabit the lower courses, even though those people do most of the work? I think people should earn their money; let's give those at the top of the pyramid 20% (or something like that) and distribute the other 80% proportionally. No need to create more money; we just need to redistribute the money that's already in the economy.
which would stifle growth to the point where the standard of living would plummet for everyone
Why is growth necessary? Don't get me wrong, I understand why it's necessary under our current economic system. I'm asking why we have to have that economic system? Why not get rid of the money multiplier (or set it to much more reasonable levels), get our currency back on a mixed-commodity standard, review derivative instruments much more carefully, set max wage caps relative to composite economic activity, and institute a host of other such customs and regulations such that being a business owner is still lucrative, but is no longer unreasonably more lucrative than having other jobs?
and thus there'd be no difference in quality of life
There's no need for full-on communism, here. A simple law that says something like no CEO, CFO, CIO, COO, Chairperson, etc. etc. etc. gets to make more than 20 times what their lowest paid worker makes would do it. There's a huge difference in the quality of life between someone who makes ten bucks an hour and someone who makes two hundred bucks an hour. Ten dollars an hour is a small apartment, an economy car, and an unglamorous vacation once every three years. Two hundred dollars an hour is a large house, two or three cars and maybe a small yacht, and a European vacation every summer. But when we have people living in cardboard boxes, why do we think it's OK for Donald Trump to install solid gold toilet seats on his personal jet?
So essentially, paying everyone a "living wage" would require everyone to live in equal poverty.
I don't think so. Now, here's my response to your other post that you mentioned:
Have you ever considered the actual economics of everyone having a living wage? For one, if everyone gets a living wage regardless of what they do, if all they want is to live, they have no incentive to actually DO anything.
I think the term "wage" implies money given for work done. Therefore, anyone being paid a wage must be doing something.
Aside from that, have you considered the monetary effects of this? We know that neighborhoods tend to be economically segregated.
Do we know that?
So say we have a neighborhood in which the vast majority makes less than what you consider a "living wage" (which, may I add, is a term that only carries semantic value, similar to "Cut and run", because have you considered that standards of living tend to be very subjective, for example, I doubt that my parents, if they all of a sudden were making what I'm making and living how I'm living, would consider my wages "living wages", while I think I'm getting by just fine).
There are objective measures of a living wage, though the actual figure tends to be different for different cultures and times. For instance, for a few bucks, I could build the type of shelter that a typical medieval peasant had. But if I tried to actually live in it, I would find (in most municipalities) that I would be evicted and the dwelling condemned because it doesn't meet certain minimum requirements. Additionally, because of the hygeine concerns inherent in such a dwelling, I would likely be unable to secure a job because the lice would be quite offensive to a potential interviewer. So we can establish that a certain bare minimum type of residence is a requirement for anyone in our culture at this time--a certain minimum square footage and a certain number of amenities such as running water and indoor toilets, a source of heat adequate to keep freezing temperatures at bay, the structural integrity to prevent the elements from getting inside and to discourage rampant infestations, and so on.
We could establish similar criteria for diet, access to health care, transportation, and other such things. Once we've identified these areas and quantified them, we can say that a living wage is one with which a person should reasonably be able to afford access to these minimums.
So what happens monetarily when you just give everyone more money (which is, in effect, exactly what you're talking about doing)? INFLATION, and if the money is distributed evenly and proportionately it has no effect on buying power.
Inflation only occurs if you put more money into the economy. Distributing money more equitably does not in itself cause inflation.
But could they leave and shop elsewhere?
Who, exactly?
Well, they certainly could drive somewhere where the cost of living is lower. But what effect does that have? Well, it vastly increases demand for goods from areas with lower costs of living (and decreases demand for goods in areas of higher cost of living, since the price inflation in areas with higher costs of living will be higher, proportional to how high the cost of living is). So that'll draw up the prices and cost of living in those areas where it is lower, and bring down prices in areas of higher cost of living, until eventually the inflation has a similar effect everywhere.
This doesn't make any sense at all. If prices come down in some areas proportionally as they go up in others, then it's hardly a case of inflation having a similar effect everywhere.
And so where do we go from there? Well, the only improvement in anyone's life will be drawn from the disproportionate distribution of the money. Those who will be most hurt will be those who were making closer to the "living wage", because they'll get some of the money, substantially less than others, and then after the inflation they'll be actually making less than they were before the money was distributed.
Are you saying that if a rich person has all the money, everything's fine, but the minute you give money to a poor person, there's inflation that causes real wages to decline? If so, that's nonsensical. That only happens if the money supply is increased.
The next effect will be that no one you're giving money to will be actually making a "living wage", because the more you give them money, the more inflation there is
You seem to be saying that if person A makes a dollar, there's no inflation, but if person B makes that dollar instead, there is inflation. That's just absurd.
In short, the only school of economic thought that ACTUALLY could see everyone making a living wage happening is the socialist school of thought, and they only think that way because they don't know **** about economics.
I think there have been some rather sharp socialists, actually.
OR you could just force Walmart to pay a higher minimum wage than anyone else, and set the precedent of legislating against companies because liberals don't like them. Because, obviously, that's constitutional
I don't think that's the point--the minimum wage ought to be raised and there ought to be controls on how much more the boss can make than his employees.
