Why a federal minimum wage law?

[Mircea]

A wage sufficient to keep a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and the lights, etc, kept on.

How is this even a hard question?

Is there some part of "define objectively in no uncertain terms" that you don't understand?

Sorry, but "etc" is not defined objectively.

Does "etc" include $100s in butt-ugly tattoos?

What kind of roof over your head? A 4,400 square foot McMansion, or will a simple 800 square foot home suffice?

 

[Mircea]

Comments like that are usually the giveaway that not only do you not understand this subject, you’re being emotional.

No, the emotional one is the one who cannot objectively define in no uncertain terms what a "living wage" is because to them, "living wage" is a feel-good talking point.

 

[Luce]

Is there some part of "define objectively in no uncertain terms" that you don't understand?

Sorry, but "etc" is not defined objectively.

Does "etc" include $100s in butt-ugly tattoos?

What kind of roof over your head? A 4,400 square foot McMansion, or will a simple 800 square foot home suffice?

I didn't realize that you are a troll. Good day.

 

[Mircea]

I didn't realize that you are a troll. Good day.

What I'm hearing is you cannot define "living wage" objectively in no uncertain terms, so you're getting mad and taking your toys home.

No one has an unalienable right to live in a particular place. If you cannot afford to live in any place, then you move to a place you can afford.

WWHHD?

What Would Homo Habilis Do?

Well, when it was too crowded and there wasn't any place to live or work for food, he would move, which makes Homo Habilis infinitely more intelligent than most Americans.

You don't shut down Millions of businesses just because some people are too damn dumb to move.

 

[bluesmoke]

Your position is totally hypocritical. The purpose of Demand-pull Inflation is to STOP the over-consumption of goods, services and resources; to STOP the over-use of goods, services and resources; or to STOP the depletion of goods, services and resources.

What you're supporting is the destruction of the environment through over-consumption ,over-use and depletion of goods, services and resources.

Yes, the inviolable Laws of Economics have built-in safeguards to prevent over-use, over-consumption and depletion and that is the function and purpose of Demand-pull Inflation.

Not only that, you get an "F" in problem solving.

To solve any problem, you must first understand the problem, and very obviously, you do not.

The problem is not that people cannot afford housing in a handful of the 44,846 housing markets in the US.

The problem is that there is a severe shortage of housing in a handful of the 44,846 housing markets in the US.

The shortage is what causes prices to rise via Demand-pull Inflation. There are only three possible solutions to Demand-pull Inflation:

1) Stop consuming;
2) Seek substitutes;
3) Increase Supply

With respect to housing, not consuming is not really a viable option.

Seeking substitutes is a viable option. You can move to a an area where housing is less expensive, or you can share housing with similarly situated persons or families.

Increasing Supply is not always an option. Take corn as an example.

Your Congress has stupidly mandated corn for ethanol instead of sugar beets (which produces twice as much ethanol per acre than corn). Because corn has now been diverted from many other markets (corn on the husk, corn on the cob, canned corn, cream of corn, succotash, corn flakes, corn meal, corn flour, corn starch, light corn syrup, dark corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, medicinal alcohol, beverage alcohol, and corn for feed) you pay higher prices for all those products.

The solution would appear to be produce more corn, but that's only possible if you can sell your corn for a price that allows you to break even or make a profit. You simply cannot operate your corn farm at a loss year after year after year.

So, often, you have to wait until prices rise even higher, so that you can produce whatever it is you want to produce in order to break even or make a proift.

That's true for housing, but there's an added element, and that is one of space.

Those handful of housing markets out of the 44,684 housing markets in the US where prices are high are 100% saturated and there is no possible or feasible way to increase the supply of housing.

The only way to increase housing supply is to buy up existing properties, displace families, and then build more housing or multi-family housing on the properties of the families you have displaced.

Since you don't understand how housing works, I'll explain it to you.

I want to rent my apartments for $500/month, but I have 10,000 people willing to pay me $1,000/month, so I would be stupid not to rent for $1,000/month.

You claim that a "living wage" (snicker) will allow people to afford $1,000/month, but it won't because there are 5,000 people willing to pay $1,500/month.

So, you just gave people a pay raise and they still can't afford housing. Every subsequent pay increase will only cause housing prices to rise that much higher making it even more unaffordable.

It works the same for homes. Why should I sell my home for $250,000 when I have 100 people willing to pay $300,000?

Giving people a "living wage" (snicker) so they can afford $300,000 does not solve the problem of housing shortage, because there's 50 people willing to pay $325,000. and 25 people willing to pay $350,000 and 10 people willing to pay $400,000.

All you succeed in doing is increasing Demand, which causes prices to rise higher and at faster intervals.

If people cannot afford housing in the handful of 44,684 housing markets that have housing shortages, then they need to move to one of the 44,684 housing markets where they can afford to live.

How is it hypocritical of me to want that people with less have more, regardless of that increasing consumption?

Your solution means not allowing people with less to have more because of your “demand-pull” theory that is nothing more than a way of keeping people from progressing in life.

Why do you not want people at the bottom of income level to progress? Why? Why not say those at the top shouldn’t make so much because of the same reasons you give, that they over-consume? Why just say those that don’t consume so much shouldn’t be allowed to consume anymore because of your overconsumption theory?

Freezing wages at the lower 80% and raising prices would reduce consumption. It seems your only goal is reduction of consumption and the end justifies the means, being to keep those with less from getting more.

 

[Mircea]

How is it hypocritical of me to want that people with less have more, regardless of that increasing consumption?

Because it's destructive to the environment and also to the economy.

Your solution means not allowing people with less to have more because of your “demand-pull” theory that is nothing more than a way of keeping people from progressing in life.

You are sadly mistaken.

It is not my theory. Demand-pull Inflation is one of the inviolable Laws of Economics.

The price of any good, service or resource is wholly dependent on the relationship between Supply & Demand.

When Demand exceeds Supply, prices rise.

When Demand exceeds both Supply and the Rate of Increase of Supply, prices rise higher and faster.

Giving people more money only cause Demand-pull Inflation to reach a phenomenon called Demand Destruction, where the price of any good, service or resource is so high that no one can afford to purchase it.

Now, do you understand?

You know, if you came out of your Ivory Tower once in a while and looked at the world around you, then you would see with your own eyes that it is not feasible to increase the Supply of Housing in those handful of housing markets out of the 44,486 housing markets in the US.

The only way to increase the Supply of Housing is to get a court order and evict 100s of families, displacing them, then tearing down all existing structures and then building more structures than previously existed.

Do you see how stupid that is?

No one has an inalienable right to live wherever they want. If you can't afford housing, then you move 100 miles or 1,000 miles to a place where you can afford housing.

Why do you not want people at the bottom of income level to progress? Why?

I do want them to progress.

However, giving them money is not the answer.

The answer is for them to change their life-styles.

When they recognize that self-improvement is the key, then they will take the actions necessary to improve themselves and then they can, um, you know, "progress."

People can progress any time they want, they just have to want to progress and they don't.

Why not say those at the top shouldn’t make so much because of the same reasons you give, that they over-consume?

But they don't overconsume, and what they consume is not what the lower classes consume.

And those people do things with their money to create jobs.

A bank won't give you a $3 Million loan to start a business that will employ 450 people, but those people with all the money you hate will.

Why just say those that don’t consume so much shouldn’t be allowed to consume anymore because of your overconsumption theory?

Again, it is not my theory.

If you had a BA in Economics, like me, then you would have studied Demand-pull Inflation and researched it and written papers on it, and then perhaps you'd understand it isn't my theory and you'd understand why it is very real and why giving people more money for housing will result in them still not being able to afford housing.

Freezing wages at the lower 80% and raising prices would reduce consumption.

Wages should never be frozen. Not ever.

Again, if you had a BA in Economics, then you would have studied the only two periods in US history when Wage Inflation existed.

You would have examined the negative impact of the Wage & Price Freeze that FDR and Nixon stupidly enacted.

You would have seen that a Price Freeze was the only correct and proper action.

You would have seen how market forces resolved the labor market issues and eliminated Wage Inflation, making a Wage Freeze stupid and unnecessary.

You would have seen how FDR screwed Millions of Americans because his Wage & Price Freeze is how employers came to lord over healthcare plans.

It seems your only goal is reduction of consumption and the end justifies the means, being to keep those with less from getting more.

It is not my goal, but it is what happens in reality because that's how the inviolable Laws of Economics work.

Giving people money to afford housing will only increase Demand for housing and cause housing prices to rise higher so in the end, you accomplished absolutely nothing, except making yourself feel better, because they still won't be able to afford housing.

And, if you give them even more money, housing prices will rise even higher, and they still won't be able to afford housing.

There is no possible way to win this game.

 

[Montgomery]

Those who campaign for minimum wage laws have no faith in Capitalism.

But in many cases, rightfully so because capitalism allows collective bargaining with real teeth and that has been taken out of US style capitalism.

Enter 'socially' responsible capitalism in which capitalism can sometimes work well without minimum wage laws and sometimes fail to work well.

Canada has found a happy medium it seems because we have been named #1 on quality of life for 4 years running. While sadly the US has fallen to 15th.

 

[bluesmoke]

.....

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Post #106

You provide no irrefutable evidence to support what I propose would be “destructive to the environment and also to the economy” nor that even is so such would be “hypocritical” of me as you falsely allege.

It is your application of Demand-pull that is theoretical. You cannot show that increasing people’s wages to a LW would be economically destructive any more than anything else that is done, such as giving huge tax breaks to the rich and large corps.
No. I disagree with the supply-side economics of “build it and they will come”. Simply increasing housing for non-existent buyers makes no sense. There needs to be demand for whatever type housing is to be built.

One thing that can result in housing being vacated and having no real value is if enough people have higher incomes to afford better housing, they will leave lower-rent housing with not enough other people to replace them in that housing. Hence, why owners of lower-rent housing don’t want their tenants to make more money.

Everybody has an inalienable right to convince their elected representatives to provide affordable housing, to what extent defined, “wherever”.
So, instead of “giving them money”, give money to the rich and large corps. Like Trump and the Republicans did in 2017. And incl in the past stimulus action.

Change what life style and how? Spend less of money they don’t have?

What self-improvement? Spend money they don’t have on a higher education to get a job that isn’t there? You do realize that having more graduates of higher ed doesn’t increase the number of higher paying jobs, don’t you?

People can progress in what way “any time they want”?
Higher income level people most certainly consume more than others. You seriously contend with that claim? How is it possible those at higher income levels don’t “overconsume”, but you’re concerned with people at lower income levels being paid more and overconsuming? There is no logic to either of those points you attempt to make. But, yeah, at lower income levels they don’t consume steak & lobster like at the high-income levels.

And those people fire workers to make more profit for themselves when they see the advantage. And those people got a huge Trump tax break that did not result in any “create jobs”, as was promised, and as you say. They create jobs to make money, period, not for the good will to others.

In the last go-round, “those people” got money from the Fed, the people’s money, and gave it mostly to large corps, not small business as much of it was supposed to be.

My wage freeze and price increase were snark, making as much sense as your thoughts.

As I implied, if giving people more money increases cost of housing, and presumably everything else, beyond affordability of most Americans, then why shouldn’t we refuse to increase wages at all? But you can’t provide evidence that giving people a LW will do so. People were earning a LW until the early 1970s when productivity continued to increase while wage increase, unlike historically before, did not.

The only win is for lower income employees to get what they deserve, a living wage.

 

[Mircea]

You provide no irrefutable evidence to support what I propose would be “destructive to the environment and also to the economy” nor that even is so such would be “hypocritical” of me as you falsely allege.

What I'm hearing is you've never taken an Economics course in your life. Suppose Supply & Demand cause oil prices to rise 500% per barrel.

That means the cost of your Life-Style increases 500%.

Should we increase minimum wage 500% to offset the higher prices of everything?

Then the price of oils will increase another 500%.

And then what? You're gonna let people come into your backyard and start fracking? Or did you plan on letting them drill for oil in your backyard? Look at the bright side, you won't have to spend money on a swing-set for your kids, because they can play on the oil rig.

Here's a better idea.....why don't you tear up some coral reefs in the sea to drill for oil?

It is your application of Demand-pull that is theoretical. You cannot show that increasing people’s wages to a LW would be economically destructive any more than anything else that is done, such as giving huge tax breaks to the rich and large corps.

Increasing the minimum wage will not make housing affordable in areas where the cost of housing is high. It will only drive the cost of housing higher. That's Econ 101 (which haven't taken yet).

No. I disagree with the supply-side economics of “build it and they will come”. Simply increasing housing for non-existent buyers makes no sense..

High housing prices indicates there are a continuous number of excess buyers.

Change what life style and how? Spend less of money they don’t have?

They have money, they just spend it all wrong.

Should I spend $1,200 on butt-ugly tattoos or should I spend $125 on a MIG/TIG welding certification course (on a bus-line even) that will allow me to earn $17 to $65/hour (depending on where they live)?

They reason they're poor is because they choose to spend $1,200 on butt-ugly tattoos.

What self-improvement? Spend money they don’t have on a higher education to get a job that isn’t there? You do realize that having more graduates of higher ed doesn’t increase the number of higher paying jobs, don’t you?

Cincinnati State is $158/credit hour. $3,792 for one year. Everyone in poverty automatically qualifies for a combined Pell Grant/Ohio Educational Opportunity Grant of $6,095/year.

Do the math:

$6,095
$3,792 less
--------
$2,303 profit for them each year

So, how many lame excuses are you going to crap out now?

Before you start cranking out the excuse mill, it's on a bus-line and offers free day care.

It's not my fault people get degrees in The Role of Transvestite Transgender Lesbian Midgets in 17th Century French Village Life and can't find a job.

You get a degree that comports with your aptitude and provides some reward (and not always money).

Or, you can do it the hard way, which is to get a degree in a hot job, amass lots of money, and then go back and get the degree you really want.

People can progress in what way “any time they want”?

How many psychiatrists and psychologists does it take to get a poor stupid person to want to change their life?

It doesn't take any, but the poor stupid person has to want to change their life.

Higher income level people most certainly consume more than others. You seriously contend with that claim? How is it possible those at higher income levels don’t “overconsume”, but you’re concerned with people at lower income levels being paid more and overconsuming?

Poor people consume art, collectibles, antiques, other unique items and travel extensively?

The "rich" might consume several yachts, but that has little bearing on The Poor®.

As I implied, if giving people more money increases cost of housing, and presumably everything else, beyond affordability of most Americans, then why shouldn’t we refuse to increase wages at all?

Because wages are based on the Supply & Demand of a specific skill-set in a particular labor market.

But you can’t provide evidence that giving people a LW will do so.

Absolutely I can. All you need to do is look at housing prices in the handful of the 44,486 housing markets that are sky-high.

What happened when the city, county or State increased the minimum wage? The prices went up even more.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Those who campaign for minimum wage laws have no faith in Capitalism. ...

Montgomery, those opposed to definite legally enforced minimum wage rate laws are opposed to equitable with independent competitive marketplaces.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Eriech]

A high minimum wage in a strong economy only turns the less employable to unemployable.
In a weak economy it turns the employed into unemployed or under employed.
What good is $15 per hour if your employer calls you and send you home as needed? Or cuts your hours by 25% to pay for the increased hourly rate.

How many whose wages were artificially raised will gross 30k or more.

 

[Mircea]

Montgomery, those opposed to definite legally enforced minimum wage rate laws are opposed to equitable with independent competitive marketplaces.

Your double-speak gobbledygook never fails to amaze me.

People who oppose "legally enforced minimum wage rate laws" recognize that the Laws of Economics are inviolable and that violating the Laws of Economics always results in a negative net detriment to markets and society.

A high minimum wage in a strong economy only turns the less employable to unemployable.
In a weak economy it turns the employed into unemployed or under employed.
What good is $15 per hour if your employer calls you and send you home as needed? Or cuts your hours by 25% to pay for the increased hourly rate.

That would be the long and the short of it. Since you broached the subject, I thought I might expound on it.

A number of studies cited in support of minimum wage laws have flawed methodology.

All the studies focus exclusively on fast-food restaurants, which is not even a representative sample statistically.

The other flaw in the methodology is the examine only total labor hours.

If a fast-food restaurant has 800 labor hours for a particular week, how many employees is that?

You can't possibly determine that. That could be 20 employees working 40 hours/week or 80 employees working 10 hours/week and every permutation in between.

When you force employers to pay higher than market rates, you also force employers to seek greater value from their employees.

The marginal employees are the ones who get harmed the most. In the restaurant and retail industry, it's called flat-lining, where you cut a marginal employee's hours to 4 hours a week, or 4 hours every other week or just 4 hours a month (the message being "go away.)

It also impacts hiring. Education is a greater value for the employer, so forced higher wages force employers to seek employees who are better educated. The workers who are high school drop-outs or GEDs get left out in the cold as employers ignore them and focus on those with diplomas and some college.

The $7.75/hour increase to $15 is not what employers actually pay. That's just the Wage Cost.

The Labor Cost = Wage Cost + FICA + HI + FUTA + SUTA + Worker's Comp + Other Benefits

With the higher FUTA/SUTA and Worker's Compensation costs, you can bet employers will be vetting employees more carefully, which means the marginal employees get left out in the cold there, too.

 

[Montgomery]

Montgomery, those opposed to definite legally enforced minimum wage rate laws are opposed to equitable with independent competitive marketplaces.
Respectfully, Supposn

You must mean 'equitable and independent competitive marketplaces'.
I'm not quite sure what 'independent' means to you.

In a true capitalist system there is no need for minimum wage laws. True capitalism has to allow collective bargaining with teeth and that calls for unions with teeth. No honest capitalist would dispute that so it just boils down the the question of which side has the biggest teeth, the employer or the employed. Sometimes that ideal balance can be found but it's never been able to be maintaiined indefinitely.

And so strong policies of 'social' responsibility by government has to be brought in to interfere with the working of capitalism. That makes the first priority of the governing body the social welfare of the people governed and it's second priority, a good working capitalist system the enriches the country and floats all of the people's boats.

I suspect that China may have found such a system because it answers to both necessities.

However, human greed has the power to pervert even the best of systems of governing and so China's system could fail sometime in the future. For now, it's capitalism is working extremely well to serve the first necessity and it's elevated hundreds of millions of their people up out of poverty.

Will it continue to do so? I look at Xi and see a very compassionate and super intelligent individual.

Judging their system should be done objectively and that leaves no room for wishful thinking that's based on China being America's biggest competitor.

And of course militarily thinking, the world has M.A.D. and that means that China will have the opportunity to prove it's system, or fail.

 

[I'm Supposn]

You must mean 'equitable and independent competitive marketplaces'. I'm not quite sure what 'independent' means to you. ...

Montgomery, the negotiating positions between employers and employees or job applicants is not equitable, (unless there’s a scarcity of lesser qualified workers). Regardless of how much poorer should be the minimum rate’s purchasing power, there’s (otherwise) always an excess of lesser qualified job applicants.
To the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, minimum wage rate statutes in the USA reduce incidences and extents of poverty among the working poor in our nation. Those are their purposes and justifications.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Montgomery]

Montgomery, the negotiating positions between employers and employees or job applicants is not equitable, (unless there’s a scarcity of lesser qualified workers). Regardless of how much poorer should be the minimum rate’s purchasing power, there’s (otherwise) always an excess of lesser qualified job applicants.
To the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, minimum wage rate statutes in the USA reduce incidences and extents of poverty among the working poor in our nation. Those are their purposes and justifications.
Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage rates put the cart before the horse. Everything you say is correct if the ideal form of Capitalism isn't being practiced. It''s not in America and it not in Canada either, but we are much closer to an equitable system. We too resort to minimum wage rates too.

I think you understand quite well but you might not have understood what I said, or you wouldn't have repeated it.

respectfully.

 

[Eriech]

Tip credit to go as well?

After a tough year for restaurants, Biden wants to eliminate the tip credit - The Maine Wire

It’s no secret that restaurants have been particularly impacted by COVID-19 lockdowns and economic restrictions, both in Maine and across the country. More than 60,000 Mainers were employed in the tourism and hospitality industry in the second quarter of 2019, but due to the pandemic and related...

www.themainewire.com

 

[bluesmoke]

See post #110

Your reply is non-sequitur. Nothing to do with your maligning and false accusation of hypocrisy. Your claim is unfounded and dismissed.

As to your response, your “500%/barrel supply-demand increase” supposition is far-fetched and self-fulfilling prophecy, a hypothetical of your own facts for your own benefit, well beyond the economics of my recommendation to make MW a LW.

Again, you can’t show a LW would be economically destructive and most certainly any more so than huge tax breaks for the rich and large corps. You have no evidence.

Yup. More buyers than can supply, higher prices.

Getting some kind of trade certificate does not guarantee a job, nor a job in that trade.

It’s not my business who spends how much on what. It is my business in concern of a social fairness and being sure our capitalistic economy works that people make a living wage

What is done in Cincinnati isn’t done everywhere for everybody. It would be good if it was. And, it doesn’t guarantee a job. Nothing you said refutes my statement. And, you didn’t answer my question “You do realize that having more graduates of higher ed doesn’t increase the number of higher paying jobs, don’t you?”

I don’t know what you mean by “People can progress any time they want”. I’m saying not everybody can progress to a LW or better any time they want. The reasons why are evident in this post.

I think what you’re saying is that poor people consume more that they can afford. What I’m saying is that people at lower incomes deserve a LW in order to, if anything, even consume more just as those that have higher incomes do. People who make more money tend to consume more, period. They would be the major contributors, as individuals, to economic overconsumption. US society is all about consumption. We are a consumer economy, which is why we will always import more than we export, unless there is global equalization, which is doubtful.

Add to that sentence “over and above a LW” and I’m on board to the greater extent.

You say you can provide the evidence, then you don’t do so. If you can’t provide evidence that a LW would cause “sky high” housing prices, then your claim is unfounded.

 

[Eriech]

See post #110

Your reply is non-sequitur. Nothing to do with your maligning and false accusation of hypocrisy. Your claim is unfounded and dismissed.

As to your response, your “500%/barrel supply-demand increase” supposition is far-fetched and self-fulfilling prophecy, a hypothetical of your own facts for your own benefit, well beyond the economics of my recommendation to make MW a LW.

Again, you can’t show a LW would be economically destructive and most certainly any more so than huge tax breaks for the rich and large corps. You have no evidence.

Yup. More buyers than can supply, higher prices.

Getting some kind of trade certificate does not guarantee a job, nor a job in that trade.

It’s not my business who spends how much on what. It is my business in concern of a social fairness and being sure our capitalistic economy works that people make a living wage

What is done in Cincinnati isn’t done everywhere for everybody. It would be good if it was. And, it doesn’t guarantee a job. Nothing you said refutes my statement. And, you didn’t answer my question “You do realize that having more graduates of higher ed doesn’t increase the number of higher paying jobs, don’t you?”

I don’t know what you mean by “People can progress any time they want”. I’m saying not everybody can progress to a LW or better any time they want. The reasons why are evident in this post.

I think what you’re saying is that poor people consume more that they can afford. What I’m saying is that people at lower incomes deserve a LW in order to, if anything, even consume more just as those that have higher incomes do. People who make more money tend to consume more, period. They would be the major contributors, as individuals, to economic overconsumption. US society is all about consumption. We are a consumer economy, which is why we will always import more than we export, unless there is global equalization, which is doubtful.

Add to that sentence “over and above a LW” and I’m on board to the greater extent.

You say you can provide the evidence, then you don’t do so. If you can’t provide evidence that a LW would cause “sky high” housing prices, then your claim is unfounded.

What the hell is social fairness? I offer a job you take it ....
Or not. Your choice. Do the job and you keep it. Do it exceptionally and you are promoted. Ultimate in "fairness".

 

[Montgomery]

What the hell is social fairness? I offer a job you take it ....
Or not. Your choice. Do the job and you keep it. Do it exceptionally and you are promoted. Ultimate in "fairness".

That's the ideal capitalist situation, but lacking all the finer points that make it into a good and working equitable system of government.

America's capitalism isn't that but the world's leading democracies are close to perfecting capitalism. That's the reason why America is rated so poorly on 'guality of life' for it's people.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

And as of late, America coming close to full scale revolution with police officers and innocent civilians being killed by insurrectionists.

It's such a simple concept to understand and the link even provides the parameters that were used in making the determinations on life quality!

America is now down to #15 and China is fast approaching at #19!

 

[bluesmoke]

What the hell is social fairness? I offer a job you take it ....
Or not. Your choice. Do the job and you keep it. Do it exceptionally and you are promoted. Ultimate in "fairness".

Or not, and go hungry. If it weren't for regs, your idea of "fairness" would have barefoot children working in shoe factories. Do it exceptionally, and you are promoted and can afford shoes bought at the company store with the scrip that is your pay. Get real.

 

[Mircea]

What the hell is social fairness?

A vague ambiguous nebulous nothing-burger.

If it weren't for regs, your idea of "fairness" would have barefoot children working in shoe factories.

People who don't understand Economics always say that.

For the longest time, 95% of the population -- including children -- were engage in agriculture. Why?

Um, so you don't starve to death and so you have something to trade to improve your Standard of Living.

Thanks to technological advances, it eventually only required 90% of your population -- including children -- to work in agriculture. Why?

Um, again, so you don't starve to death and so you might have something to trade to enhance your Standard of Living.

When a country makes that leap from a 1st Level Economy to a 2nd Level Economy, it requires an enormous amount of labor, more labor than a population generally has and that is why children must work, at least initially.

The fatal flaw in your nonsensical ranting is "skilled labor."

Do children possess skilled labor? The operand is skilled.

No, they do not, which leads us to another important facet that your fatally flawed rantings ignore and that is Birth Rate.

Expansion through the 2nd Level Economy requires ancillary services, which is why GDP growth is generally 8% to 15% per quarter.

A work-force educated to the 4th or 6th Grade doesn't get it and neither does the 8th Grade. You need people educated to the 10th Grade and then you need people with high school diplomas.

Staying in school delays marriage which reduces Birth Rate.

But for the ancillary services like management, administration, supervision, accounting, legal, insurance, finance, logistics, research, development, testing, design, engineering, architecture, drafting etc etc etc you need college educated workers.

That delays marriage even longer and reduces the Birth Rate even more.

If you do doubt, might I suggest you avail yourself of the US Census Bureau website so you can visualize the drastic drop in Birth Rate in the US long before birth control became available in the mid-1960s.

Your claim that children would be working is absurdly farcical.

While I'm on the topic, you're probably one of those who think over-population is problem (and it is, but only in your head).

The US will not develop sub-Saharan Africa, but the good news is that China will.

As the sub-Saharan States move from the Zero and 1st Level Economies into the 2nd Level Economy, they will need an educated workforce which means more schools, better schools and people staying in school longer and delaying marriage which will reduce the birth rate exactly in the same way it did for Western Europe, the US and Canada.

So, get over it already.

 

[Mashmont]

Why a federal minimum wage law?

There are libertarians and/or credible economists that continue arguing the justification of a minimum wage rate. Currently, all of the world's industrial nations have government laws similar to our federal minimum wage rate, or some quasi-government organization that enforce something to accomplish our rate's purpose.

If the federal minimum wage rate statutes were eliminated, What are likely to be USA states net detrimental deliberate or unintentional harm to other states' economies? Particularly the consequences between neighboring states? The Constitutional Convention of 1787 addressed this issue and included the commerce clause within our constitution.

Currently, each state's government may, and many do expand upon the coverage and/or the amount of the federal minimum wage rate.

I'm a proponent of gradually increasing of the federal minimum wage rate to 125% of its Feb-1968 purchasing power, and then continuing to retain that purchasing power; that's of a little greater targeted purchasing power than that of H.R. 582, but I'm pleased with that last passed House resolution. It will be to Democrats' advantages in 2020.

Respectfully, Supposn

There should be no minimum wage. It’s none of government’s business what wage an employer and employee agree to. An artificial wage minimum puts the poorest and least skilled out of work. And it prevents workers from getting 40 hours.

 

[I'm Supposn]

There should be no minimum wage. It’s none of government’s business what wage an employer and employee agree to. An artificial wage minimum puts the poorest and least skilled out of work. And it prevents workers from getting 40 hours.

Mashmont, to the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty in our nation. That it’s purpose and justification.
That federal rate passed by our Congress and signed off on by our president, limits the extent a state’s wage rates can undermine the minimum wage rates of other states in our nation.

I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Mashmont]

Mashmont, to the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty in our nation. That it’s purpose and justification.
That federal rate passed by our Congress and signed off on by our president, limits the extent a state’s wage rates can undermine the minimum wage rates of other states in our nation.

I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.
Respectfully, Supposn

I believe in the population's welfare. That's why I vehemently oppose minimum wage laws. They put the poorest and least-skilled out of work.