Minimum wage (split from, "Humbling and Hofstra")

[waitforufo]

But the amount they'll be paying more by is less than the amount that their income is raised.

So the difference between this more they get and the more they pay, where does that money come from? Do you really think it comes from the fat-cats and shareholders? Their companies are making more revenue due to higher prices so their stock values go up. Sure, things cost a bit more but at worst it is a wash for them. Likely they will be getting richer. The money to pay that difference will come from reduced hours and fewer jobs. Again poverty stays the same if not gets worse because now the middle class bears the burden. So the fat-cats and shareholders are not hurt, but the middle class and the poor tread water at best. For some, this little game makes them feel better. Go figure.

 

Why not try something bolder. Why not go to a negative income tax and abolish the minimum wage? Now the IRS can do the job of all the dole/welfare workers thereby reducing the size of government and taxes. Wages would then have to be high enough to entice people to work. Those that chose to work will have a chance a living a better life. Those that don't chose to work can't really complain.

[swansont]

The money to pay higher wages has to come from somewhere. The question is who is paying? The idea that fat-cats and shareholders are paying is a joke. Consumers pay. Since the poor consumers spend all of their money, higher minimum wages is simply a regressive tax on the poor. A mind boggling concept to some.

 

 

Mind-boggling in the sense that you make a bald claim. No data, no facts, not even a stab at a made-up scenario.

 

How, for example, is having more money a regressive tax? If one spends all of one's money but has more money.

The poor will simply have the same poverty but with more cash which buys less. You will also have to pay more in taxes for the dole because dole payments will also purchase less. My guess is that you will feel better about yourself however, because you championed higher wages.

 

If increasing minimum wages provides so many benefits, why not set the minimum wage at $100.00 per hour? Won't we all then be fat cats?

Seattle raised it's minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Now they have these. No minimum wage, no Obamacare, no sick leave.

 

 

 

 

Prove it. back up your BS with some facts, for a change. For example, show ~50% inflation in Seattle. If the minimum wage went from ~$10 to $15, that's a 50% bump in wages. If your new income buys less, then you must have a higher rate of inflation. If you're right, then this must have happened. So let's see articles that document it.

[Delta1212]

So the difference between this more they get and the more they pay, where does that money come from? Do you really think it comes from the fat-cats and shareholders? Their companies are making more revenue due to higher prices so their stock values go up. Sure, things cost a bit more but at worst it is a wash for them. Likely they will be getting richer. The money to pay that difference will come from reduced hours and fewer jobs. Again poverty stays the same if not gets worse because now the middle class bears the burden. So the fat-cats and shareholders are not hurt, but the middle class and the poor tread water at best. For some, this little game makes them feel better. Go figure.

 

Why not try something bolder. Why not go to a negative income tax and abolish the minimum wage? Now the IRS can do the job of all the dole/welfare workers thereby reducing the size of government and taxes. Wages would then have to be high enough to entice people to work. Those that chose to work will have a chance a living a better life. Those that don't chose to work can't really complain.

The money comes from all of the people buying the product that didn't have their wages increased, as John Cuthber just said.

[swansont]

Somehow you will pay more for goods, but minimum wage earners won't? What magic makes that happen?

 

What magic makes the inflation rate equal to the wage hike? I already showed that this is a ludicrous claim.

The money comes from all of the people buying the product that didn't have their wages increased, as John Cuthber just said.

 

It doesn't even have to do that. The price of a product is not the cost of the raw materials plus the wages that went into making it plus a small profit. Labor adds value to it. If someone makes a widget from $5 in raw materials and $10 in labor, the widget can be sold at whatever the market will bear. There's nothing that limits you to e.g. $2 in profit. If it's something that people value, you could sell it for $50 or even $100. It's even more pronounced an effect if the labor is only a small fraction of the base cost. Consider the labor cost of an iPhone. It's estimated at about $30, and would be about $50 if they made it in the US. The profit margin is quite larger. It sells for ~3x the manufacturing cost.

https://www.quora.com/What-would-be-the-labor-cost-per-unit-of-an-iPhone-if-it-was-made-in-the-US

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Why not try something bolder. Why not go to a negative income tax and abolish the minimum wage? Now the IRS can do the job of all the dole/welfare workers thereby reducing the size of government and taxes. Wages would then have to be high enough to entice people to work. Those that chose to work will have a chance a living a better life. Those that don't chose to work can't really complain.

Negative income tax would work just fine, and I think it's probably more efficient than the current system.

I see you think that this group

"Those that don't chose to work can't really complain. " is significant.

Do you realise that most of the people in the dole queues are looking for work, but can't find it?

Why punish them for something outside their control?

[Ten oz]

The money to pay higher wages has to come from somewhere. The question is who is paying? The idea that fat-cats and shareholders are paying is a joke. Consumers pay. Since the poor consumers spend all of their money, higher minimum wages is simply a regressive tax on the poor. A mind boggling concept to some.

This argument has been used in an attempt for industry. Car companies adding seatbelts, airbags,saftey glass, and etc. The cost of vehicular deaths and injuries and the impact that it had on society broadly in terms of emergency services, insurance, disability, damage to public infastructure, and etc is far great than the claimed regresive tax. Without the saftey messures which companies lobbied against Uber, FedEx, Viking Freight, Delivery pizza, and countless other companies that heavily rely on vehicle transportation wouldn't be able to afford the insurance to even make doing business worthwhile. Improving vehicle safety lowered various other costs and create opportunities. Same can be said for environmental protection. It was a lot cheap for industry when they could just drop mercy into the water but there are many long term costs that make that temporary savings more expensive for society in the long run.

 

Your argument treats individual business and industries in isolation. That isn't how an economy works. An economy is fluid and integrated. The majority of careers people will have in this country (USA) in 50yrs don't even exist today.

 

The poor will simply have the same poverty but with more cash which buys less. You will also have to pay more in taxes for the dole because dole payments will also purchase less. My guess is that you will feel better about yourself however, because you championed higher wages.

 

1 - If increasing minimum wages provides so many benefits, why not set the minimum wage at $100.00 per hour? Won't we all then be fat cats?

2 - Seattle raised it's minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Now they have these. No minimum wage, no Obamacare, no sick leave.

 

1 - In economy value of our currency is managed. Some commodities set by the global market, others by federal monetary policy, some at the local level by taxes or restrictions on out of county or state products/services, and etc. Your question ignores the fact that value and access are managed by policy. If we calculate what an employer pays in insurance, city and or county tax in the form of fees, the required infastructure to have employees (break areas, restrooms, safe work environment, etc) many employers already have a work force that cost over $100 per employee per hour. Money directly into the employees pocket isn't everything in these types of discussions.

 

2 - That technology exited before Seattle. Arguing about technology is never useful. Technology is how we get from here to the economy of the our future whether than economy is better or worse.

[imatfaal]

Unemployment is at a low in Seattle - down from 7 percent odd a few years back to below 4%. 14,000 private sector jobs added in September. Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbite eh?

[Ten oz]

Unemployment is at a low in Seattle - down from 7 percent odd a few years back to below 4%. 14,000 private sector jobs added in September. Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbite eh?

Crime is also down NYC, Chicago, and nationally year by year for decades now but that doesn't stop calls for stop and frisks and claims that minority communities have never been worse.

 

An obvious tell of a weak position is it being supported by erroneous or misrepresented information. Perhaps a living wage isn't the most effective way to achieve the goals those who support a living champion. There are alternatives. Adding inaccurate information into the discussion only poisons the well though. Makes it more difficult to come to any useful conclusion.

[swansont]

Unemployment is at a low in Seattle - down from 7 percent odd a few years back to below 4%. 14,000 private sector jobs added in September. Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbite eh?

3.52%, baby

https://twitter.com/TBPInvictus/status/790278910445510660

[imatfaal]

3.52%, baby

https://twitter.com/TBPInvictus/status/790278910445510660

 

Don't you know? Facts are a liberal trick!

h/t Mark Longoria