Huzzah! Minimum Wage Increase Shot Down in Senate

But then, there is some benefit to a minimum wage. I think that it's important that someone is able to feed, clothe and keep a roof over their head if they have a job. There must be a balance in there somewhere between minimum price of goods, affordability of living and the like and the minimum wage. More work for economists I suppose.
 
happychem said:
I agree with you, but I don't understand the reasoning presented here. I don't so much agree that more people wanting a job for a higher wage would increase unemployment, since for them to want the minimum wage job they would have to be unemployed to start with.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets say there are 30 jobs at $5.00 an hour, and 15 at $7.00 an hour because businesses are inherently limited in how much labor they can afford to buy. That is a 50% reduction in job avaliability. If 20 people were employed before, then thats 5 more people added to unemployment. If all 30 were employed, then thats 15 who are now unemployed.
 
happychem said:
But then, there is some benefit to a minimum wage. I think that it's important that someone is able to feed, clothe and keep a roof over their head if they have a job. There must be a balance in there somewhere between minimum price of goods, affordability of living and the like and the minimum wage. More work for economists I suppose.
Click to expand...

As already explained, sociologists who have studied the issue find that when minimum wage is increased, those who benefit tend to be the children of the middle and upper class. Those who depend on such jobs for their survival are far more likely to be laid off, or have their hours cut back.
 
Minimum wage is a bit of a joke to me. I've never met a person who has lived off of one minimum wage job. I've met plenty who lived off of a couple of them but never off of one.

Although it pains me to say it, I have to agree with Slip here ;) Minimum wage increases benefit part time employees ie. kids.
 
slipknottin said:
Ok, lets say there are 30 jobs at $5.00 an hour, and 15 at $7.00 an hour because businesses are inherently limited in how much labor they can afford to buy. That is a 50% reduction in job avaliability. If 20 people were employed before, then thats 5 more people added to unemployment. If all 30 were employed, then thats 15 who are now unemployed.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying, that makes perfect sense to me.

The point that I was making was that your original post said:
Instead of the maybe 2 or 3 people who want the job at $5.00 an hour, 10-15 might want it at $7.00 an hour, and therefor create unemployment.
Click to expand...
Which didn't make sense.
 
happychem said:
The point that I was making was that your original post said: Which didn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Well, its really the same thing. Fewer jobs will create more competition, and more unemployment.
 
Is raising minimum wage when the dollar is a bit weak a smart move anyway? By the way, Kennedy was indignant about this. And of course people were out carrying signs. Are people that easily misled?
 
If they would stop inflating the currency there would be no need for a raise in minimum wage. They should anchor the dollar to gold again. But, of course, that would never happen because then they wouldn't be able to line their own pockets so easily. Also, if they anchored the dollar, it would be more difficult to get rid of the middle class. They can't disrupt their agenda. Read those links! Very revealing! Anybody who likes money should read a book called "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It is the most amazing history book I have ever read. You can open to any page, start reading and understand what is being said, and it also reads like a novel, even though it is a non-fiction history of the "Federal Reserve System." If people knew what was really going on, there would be rioting in the streets!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom