- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How do you explain that while while less than 3% of the US workforce makes the MW that 15% (or more) rely on the "safety net"?
It pretty much does work that way. Higher wages increases demand and market activity which in turn increases profits.
Why do you say that? Do we tax welfare?
No, you simply tax welfare recipients' increased income from their employment, which is offset by thousands of dollars in lost income due to extra taxes and lost transfer payments (more than $15,000, depending on what study you look at).
This is why there is a general disincentive for people who receive such subsidies to increase their income, and why government transfer payments will never decline, no matter what minimum you set wages at.
No it wouldn't. How would it create jobs? Do employers hire employees because it's cheap, or cheaper, to do so, or do they hire employees because they have **** for those employees to do? Think this through.
You dont think there are employers out there that need help but cannot afford it?
Because the minimum wage is too low, thus even people who make a little more than minimum wage qualify for some sort of means tested welfare.
Also because it's probably too easy to qualify for welfare.
Is it? There is no shortage of these jobs. Has anyone, ever in the history, not been able to find a minimum wage job for an extended period of time? I don't think it's a big concern. No one is out there going, "God dammit, I can't get a job paying minimum wage at McDonalds or Walmart anymore!".
But hey, it's their bed so they should lay in it right? If they just worked harder they could have a better job anyway.
One must remember that for every $1 of wage increase that at least $0.153 of it goes directly to the federal government via payroll taxes. Each $6.50 in wages generates at least $1 more for the federal government to waste.
The benefit of means tested "welfare" is that it goes only to those with dependents and does not increase the cost of living nearly as much as an across the board pay raise for all workers will. As long as the nation is willing to give the required COLA bump to those living of fixed incomes it may be worth a try to raise the MW to the inflation adjusted equivalent of the 1968 MW - or to about $10.60/hour.
The Top 1% appreciates those profits. The question is how many new jobs will they create.
at the height of the recession there were about 4 unemployed for every job opening total, right?
didn't you hear, next year trickle down will finally kick in. just had to build up for 35 years first.
So even if every unemployed person had decided to accept a part time minimum wage job, there still wouldn't have been enough jobs for every unemployed person to have one.
Good point.
Where did I mention trickle down economics? Oh right, I didn't. What I said works on the same principle as welfare increasing companies profits.
Unemployed Job Seekers per Opening (JOLTS data) - New York State Department of Labor
It was actually worse than 4, but anyways
correct, it's kind of just a worse version of having structural unemployment.
If you cared about the working poor, you would want less of those jobs. Working those jobs is an accurate description of what Hell must be like.
...Ultimately, what defines your income is your productivity, and low wage sectors, like retail trade/leisure & hospitality generally contribute less to the economy than all the other sectors, in percentage terms anyway.
How do you explain that while while less than 3% of the US workforce makes the MW that 15% (or more) rely on the "safety net"?
You've had 9 minimum wage increases since 1938, and somehow this keeps happening...
This is because welfare programs increase effective marginal tax rates of low-income earners.
So Paris Hilton is very productive?
In an ideal world, income would be based upon productivity. We would have a meritocracy. In the real world, income is based upon negotiating power.
In an ideal world would the price you pay for something be based upon how much money you have as well?
and low wage sectors, like retail trade/leisure & hospitality generally contribute less to the economy than all the other sectors, in percentage terms anyway.
Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation for like 50 years.
Tons of large corporate chains have an automatic pay raise after six months of 25 to 50 cents an hour. These people technically don't make minimum wage, but should still be counted when you throw around numbers like this.
Nope.
I'm just pointing out that the real world doesn't work like libertarian rhetoric indicates it should.
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?