I can't think of a single reason that we should have that policy. I'd much prefer to eliminate all forms of means tested welfare, and then use that money to either provide more government services for everyone, or to simply reduce taxation.
I get accused of being a liberal frequently, but I'm really much more of a libertarian - if something has to be taxpayer subsidized (like McDonalds), then we probably don't really need it. I think that a higher minimum wage would produce a much better economy, than any sort of means tested individual welfare or subsidies to low paying employers.
I don't quite agree, or at least not entirely. We'll always have people who cannot work and make a livable wage, and they might be diagnosed as disabled or not. And whether anyone WANTS to subsidize those people, it's going to happen because we won't allow beggars with little infants to stand around every gathering place like you see regularly overseas, or little kids begging for food on the side of the road, etc.
I do agree with that for the most part, but I'm actually not very opposed if at all to things like EITC, and we (taxpayers) are going to have to subsidize healthcare for low wage workers somehow, IMO, not because I want that but realistically and practically that's the best option.
Except no one is advocating that. You really should be able to tell the difference between voluntary employment and slavery at this point.
It would not be pretty, but it very well might create jobs. What we would see is wage rate determination by the cross of Labor Supply and Demand.
When I worked for MW (it was $1.60/hour and soon went to $2.00/hour) I shared an apartment becuase, as you said, it was not enough income to meet expenses living alone. MW was then, and still is now, not offered except to entry level workers (under 3% of the workforce) and anyone could exceed that pay by proving themselves to be worth more. The idea that one full-time worker at MW can fully support themselves, much less support a familiy, has never been the case; an entry level McJob was never intended to be a career.
Intended by whom? And why shouldn't full time employment support a family? What law of the universe dictates this?
Why not? Prices go up, yes, but not as much as the pay.Assuming that a family is 4 persons, and only one of them works 40 hours per week, in order to not be poor enough to get Medicaid then that single worker must receive at least $32,713/year (138% of the FPL) or about $16/hour (at todays prices). Obviously, if the MW were raised from $7.25/hour to $16/hour many prices would also increase requiring the federal poverty level (thus the MW) to rise again.
One must also consider that those now making MW + $X/hour would expect to remain at that level, since the relative value of their labor still remains above that of the 3% that now get the federal MW. Is it really practical to give most US hourly workers (and many salaried workers) a raise of $8.75/hour each?
The resulting cost of living increase (from giving the bulk of the US workforce a sizable raise) would require COLA adjustments in SS (more taxes?) and reduce the value of many private pensions that do not get COLA adjustments. If it were as simple as mandating that all US workers wiill be middle class by raising their hourly pay rate then that would have been done long ago.
Intended by whom? And why shouldn't full time employment support a family? What law of the universe dictates this?
... If it were as simple as mandating that all US workers wiill be middle class by raising their hourly pay rate then that would have been done long ago.
...
Why is a McDonald's worker's labor worth $7.25 and not $15? ...
So.. According to you, their labor costs go up, they get busier, they hire more (at the now higher wage) and magically reduce prices. :roll:
It's not magic. It's how it works. That's why we did better back when we paid more.
what's missing from the 'wage increases cause inflation' thing is so long as wage increases are tied to productivity gains, there is no need for higher prices because costs per unit don't increase. For a couple hundred years, wage increases were tied to productivity, and instead of inflation being the big effect, we had rising living standards. The problem is about 1970 or so, productivity gains quit going to workers and went to owners/executives, so wages have stagnated despite robust productivity gains.
Exactly!!!
It's a distribution of income issue, nothing more, nothing less.
Uh oh you used the D word, you must be a communist.
It is almost totally illogical to think that forcing companies to pay people more money for zero extra productivity is actually going to help an economy. Lowering productivity is almost never a good thing.
Sure, many liberals say it means the poor have more money to spend and yada yada.
But as I have pointed out many times, that argument does not hold water. And the CBO (and the OP study) apparently agree with me.
And it is typical of socialistic thinking. Often well intentioned but poorly thought out and usually detached from reality.
It is almost totally illogical to think that forcing companies to pay people more money for zero extra productivity is actually going to help an economy. Lowering productivity is almost never a good thing.
Sure, many liberals say it means the poor have more money to spend and yada yada.
But as I have pointed out many times, that argument does not hold water. And the CBO (and the OP study) apparently agree with me.
And it is typical of socialistic thinking. Often well intentioned but poorly thought out and usually detached from reality.
Some people tell me that I am.
It's often the same people who tell me that I am a socialist or commie, that argue against me when I say that we should eliminate means tested welfare, stop subsidising low wage paying companies like Walmart and McDonalds, and decrease taxation. Go figure.
for every study that indicates a higher min wage is bad, there's a study that indicates otherwise.
Even the Heritage Foundation study on the subject admitted that there is no trend towards either higher inflation or loss of jobs when we increase min wage, although the study continues on to say that they still believe it is bad for our economy.
We all pick and chose to believe in whatever suits our ideology.
You're operating under the impression that their current pay matches the exact productivity of their labor. Faulty assumption.
...Making large numbers of products or services more expensive without improving them in any way cannot help society as a whole. Again, not possible. It just means society as a whole must spend a larger percentage of their incomes to buy products/services that are no more efficient.
If you or others choose to ignore this, go ahead. It does not make it any less impossible.
Ummm...I don't think you understand what 'productivity' means.
'PRODUCTIVITY'
An economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other GDP components such as business inventories. Productivity measures may be examined collectively (across the whole economy) or viewed industry by industry to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement.'
Productivity Definition | Investopedia
Whatever they are producing at their cost IS their productivity.
If they are paid 1 cent or $1 million dollars per hour doesn't matter. In both examples, they are producing the good/service with a level of productivity...the former obviously has far more productivity then the latter.
Whatever someone is paid to produce something IS their level of productivity.
So, if you are paid $7/hr. to make a widget/hr. then you are more productive then if you are paid $8/hr. to make a widget/hr..
So, by paying someone more money to do the exact same task, all other things being equal, then you are making them less productive.
And here I thought a market crash cost all those jobs...
When people have more money in their pockets, they spend and save more, and demand increases. When companies have an increase in realized demand, they produce more, and thus they hire more people, and create more wealth. The cost for higher wages is paid for out of the additional wealth creation, it costs the consumer nothing, and it costs the business owner nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?