Minimum Wage

Why do republicans and social darwinists hate the idea of raising the minimum wage to $15/hr? It'd lower crime rate and raise our standard of living. Australia and Europe did it and it worked fine for them.

Prices only rise for things in short supply but high demand….. the more demand there is as long as their is supply… the price can stay the same or even be lower….. often it is less expensive to manufacture more things at one time than a few things at a time.

McDonalds profits billions of dollars every year. The only reason they are able to do so is by paying their employees less than what they are worth. They would happily pay people less than the current minimum wage if they were allowed to. They would happily cut their employees hours more than they do so now if they were able to. The government currently subsidizes their paying their employees dirt wages when workers are forced to go to the government despite working. It is corporate welfare. The bottom line is that anyone who is working 40 hours a week is doing the right thing by me and by society's standards. They should be able to pay their bills without going to government for help.

All of your notions that workers will be laid off have been dis-proven. What difference does it make to the fast food place if the person getting paid 15 bucks an hour is full time or part time?

You can virtue signal and brag all you want but at the end of the day you and I both know you don't give a shit about these people and just want to feel superior. Bottom line is not everyone wants to work that hard, nor does everyone have the correct guidance on learning the 'right' skills or 'employable' ones. Many people aren't like that. How about instead of them being dead weight on welfare or NEETbux using up our tax dollars we give them a decent wage so they not only get off welfare but stop robbing us? No? Too much? You'd rather see them suffer for fun? Then you're no better than they are.

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/sobering-news-for-15-minimum-wage-boosters/2017/08/01/4e607234-76f0-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>>>Holla Forums

you're a retard that doesn't know how society works. everything would raise in price in order for companies to earn money

...

/thread

...

I can't see problem with that

[citation needed]

are you mentally retarded?

Yeah, Walmart, Polaris, and McDonalds already did it. It would only take away from excess corporate profit and only negligibly. It won't happen though. Too many special interests bar it from happening and people in these jobs don't have enough status for their protests to matter

that's what i call ==T R I G G E R E D==

I'm bored
newfaggot

Tee-hee

Aslo yes Prague. Give numbers.

Let the niggers starve, and I'll gladly magdump into a nigger's chest if he tries to rob me.

How the fuck is that capitalist? It´s Socialist a minima, as it needs a huge state to enforce it.

you're right, it wasn't an argument. i was pointing out how much of a stupid faggot you are.

liberal arts major wagecucks getting mad about their lives again
but seriously the poorest regions of the US would get hit the hardest, stable jobs with stable hours would get destroyed, opportunities for advancing careers would be reduced at the entry level, this is an all out bad idea pushed by wagecuck college grads living in wealthy parts of the US with no concept of reality

ok, I'll start with Bratislava. Minimal wage is about 2-3 EUR/hour. Care to correct your numbers before I call you laying faggot again?

Because it's about redistribution of wealth, that's what capicucks were allways doing to pacify their populations. Commies are for redistribution of ownership, or at least for getting employees more % to paycheck from labour value stolen by employer.

No, it really doesn't. A flat tax without credits and a flat payout would actually greatly reduce the overhead in the tax system compared to what we have currently. You might argue that that's still too big of a state, and you might be right, but your ancap utopia isn't any closer to reality than "" real communism "".

Yes, that sounds like you know more.
I'm still right on the end though: the cost of life is cheaper in countries where minimum wage is lower.

Are you sure you're not misunderstanding capitalism with liberalism? This nigger is closer. You still need to leavage tax from basically everyone (including the people getting the income, which makes no fucking sense).

Sure, the big money players can afford to collude with the government on price-fixing schemes regarding ultra-low-skilled human labor but where does that leave locally owned and small businesses that make up the majority of the economy?
It would be nice for the people who actually get the wage hike but for all the people who are let go or received fewer hours to support the increase it would be a living hell.

Or you just only put a tax on wages and capital gains? Or only on corporate profits? Come on, it's not rocket science.

I don't want to pay $14 for a gallon of milk, because some stupid fucking bitch doesn't understand economics, and thinks it is everyone's problem that she has children she can't provide for

...

Sounds good

Says no one ever

Wouldn't happen. When people have more money they can afford more services and that leads to more profit. A small wage increase to $15/hr would never do that much damage.

Well, I never fucking worked for minimum wage. You, on other hand, never worked day in your life.

liberalism is just subset of capitalism.

you sound like cuck

Except it was a PR swindle because all they did was cut everybody's hours to make up for the pay increase. Nobody gets full time at these places anymore and they're all on food stamps.

We're talking about a marginal increase to $15 from $9-$10/hr dude. It's not going to be a big deal like if you raised it to 20 or 25 or 50. You're overstating things for no reason

I worked full time at Walmart a year ago so I'm not sure what you're on about.

It's just an excuse to make more money. The wages in 1965 were higher than now relatively considering PPP ratios

I did work for minimum wage, dumbass.

You messing up two essential terms makes you look like a fool. You can't counter argue neither.

Corporations are a necessary evil in some domains in socialist states. When there are a truckload of rules to build, idk, cars for example in a country, you need ultra-rich corporations to build cheap cars for the average man.

what is even funnier that within the coming years, minimum wage jobs are going to go away due to technology.

Like I said, that would be great for the people who kept the same hours before and after the increase but you're still ignoring the people who were let go and received less hours. What are they going to be able to afford will less or equal money when the price of things rise even slightly.
And you're still ignoring small businesses.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/sobering-news-for-15-minimum-wage-boosters/2017/08/01/4e607234-76f0-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

You act as if businesses aren't even even going to have a response other than opening their coffers.

in which country?
ok, redpill me differences between liberalism and capitalism

You, on other hand, don't have a clue what socialism is.

Honestly I don't know enough about it. All I know is that other countries minimum wage is higher and ours is not enough to live on in any state.

Why does it matter?

Go check wikipedia faggot, I'm on my phone and typing a single sentence is a pain in the ass.

I'm being very large on socialism, this is true. Let's say a social-liberal state.

...

I agree that the minimum wage vs the cost of living is shit. Increasing X's salary and forcing Y to work an additional job (or crime) just to make up money isn't the answer though.

Fortunately, most businesses have accountants and shit that can actually think rationally, so they're not going to be scared away by the existence of taxes when they still have the opportunity to make profit. Hell, the whole point of a profit tax (rather than taxing revenue) is that the government only gets any money at all if the business is profitable. Given the choice between making a profit and taking a loss to spite the "le ebil gubmint," any rational actor would choose to turn a profit.

If they could have gotten by with fewer man-hours, why didn't they cut hours even before they increased wages? It's not like any of those companies are charities.

Rather than increasing the number that the government gets a cut of, wouldn't it make more economic sense to reduce taxes so that each person takes home an amount that's closer to what they earned?

Where's the machine? I'll crank that bitch all day

That would amount to redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

This won't be enough to provide a universal revenue though. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know the figures.

Because people crave for services.

this

Yes, and all those other countries have very low growth rate. Because of the minimum wage. Small business is the one that fuels growth in an economy, with income taxes already being this high here, with added high minimum wages, our prices are high, and our growth is shit.

You have to shill out 20000$ more here for the same car you could get in the US for 20000$ less.

If drinking water is good for you why not drink ten gallons of water? Then you'll be super healthy!

I'm not even surprised any more.

...

?????????

Just wanted to say OP is a liberal, not a leftist. His retardation isn't ours.
- Holla Forums

GDP is a piss poor way to measure economic health

...

Making more money compared to 15/hr is bad***
fixed

try this: The fact that too much of something is bad doesn't prove any amount is bad

wow Sweden is still a place

Of all of his post, this is the only flaw you can find? You can't even refute his main argument.

kys

It's all I bothered with. He's wrong about growth rates, (they're about the same) wrong to measure with growth rates, small business is a nonsequitor, and the US has been doing poorly because it's demand starved and has been for the last 25 years of trickled on.

Are you literally retaeded? Do you have no comcept of inflation? Raising the price of labour raises the cost to produce products. It doesn't matter if demand remains constant if rthe cosr to produce wverything doubles. The only purpose of minimum wage is to force inflation artificially so that the now cash strapped business have to take out loans from banks.

UBI set at 100% FPL would cost about 2.5 trillion USD per year, but 1 trillion of that would be paid for by cutting social security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs that would no longer be necessary. With no other changes to the federal budget, a flat tax of about 27% on wages, capital gains, and corporate profit would balance the budget.

No one thinks it doesn't. But it's worth it.Businesses aren't doing poorly in the US because of taxes but because of insufficient demand.

Wew you sure showed me

Sure, but what's required to increase demand is an increase in actual buying power. Minimum wage does not have a significant positive effect on buying power.

Poor people go and spend their money immediately. Increasing their relative buying power disproportionately increases demand.

Er, no.

What about the problem of people who will deliberately stop working?

Which lowers prices which allows people with less money to purchase more.

irrelevant. What matters is the huge amount of unused capacity. Stores and factories went unused so long they closed and the economy shrunk. The US can undo that, but only by improving demand.

That's not how it works. When demand is way too low but prices are rising, as in the US, the only cure is to raise demand

That's not actually a problem. We have a labor glut right now thanks to feminism. Encouraging some people to stay at home will alleviate that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the majority of people will refuse to work; work gives purpose and most people don't want to live in poverty. There's clear benefits to be had from working. But this will make it possible to have stay at home parents again, which will pay dividends as the next generation reaches maturity, and it will make those who voluntarily choose to work more engaged and productive. After all, they're not just there for a paycheck, they're there because that's where they want to be.

That's no way to introduce yourself to the thread.

What's that sound? Is that the sound of you admitting your insufficient demand argument is bullshit? It is? Ok then.

I just think the minimum wage should be quite low, but that certain corporations should incentivize performance by giving monetary bonuses as a reward for good work done. I used to collect carts at Walmart. It's a thankless and tiring job. Walmart's parking lots are fucking huge, the size of football fields, and you have to walk around them for the better part of eight hours and collect the carts that lazy dipshits just leave everywhere. You have to be out there and risk getting run over by dipshits who aren't careful about how they drive in pedestrian areas. You have to be out there in the harsh elements like snow, hail, and blazing heat. You have to listen to asshole customers talk down to you like you're some servant boy that exists merely to satisfy their whims. It's a shitty job, and therefore it has a higher turnover because people don't like to put up with the bullshit for 7 fucking 25 an hour.

In jobs like these, where you work for a multi-billion dollar corporation like Walmart, they could not only provide minimum wage, but also provide an incentive for performance. If they had some way of counting the number of carts that a person could bring in every hour, then they could set up a "points system" and the employee could earn an extra amount of money, on top of their minimum wage, up to a certain amount, for bringing in a target amount of carts.

For instance, let's say you bring in 200 carts in 30 minutes, and each cart is worth $0.05 cents, that's an extra 10 fucking dollars on top of what you would earn in that hour. That shit's not realistic, unless we're talking about hectic times like Black Friday or something. You'll likely bring in 200 - 300 carts a day. What's an extra 10 dollars a day for a multi-billion dollar company? You can't tell me they couldn't afford it, they're just greedy fucks that want to pay you the smallest amount of money possible and work you like a slave.

As for increasing the minimum wage itself, maybe it should be on a case by case basis, and only certain corporations must comply. I understand that small and locally owned businesses already have difficulty competing with monolith corporations, so maybe they should be exempt from having to pay more, and it should only be the greed fucks like Pepsi, McDonald's, Walmart, etc.
Incentivize performance, and pay people bonuses based on how well they do. Maybe this should only apply to multi-billion dollar corporations and not locally owned small businesses.

24 separate studies stated that unemployment didn't rise under a higher minimum wage.

Stop being a pussy you pale skinned ghost

...

I get where you're coming from but there are reasons things aren't done like that. The best one might be the snake situation in India.

Back when the British governed that shithole, there was a snake problem infesting the place that had to be taken care of. And much like your suggestion, the British people gave out a reward for each snake captured.
The problem began when indians started breeding snakes to "sell" for money since all they saw was the British buying snakes, and once they terminated this idea since they ended up with even more snakes, the Indians released all captive snakes in the environment, further fucking up the solution.

Let's say that Wallmart took your idea and implemented it. Maybe you're an upstanding citizen that would just do his job the best he can to earn a fair reward. But is everyone like that?
You'd have colleges cutting each other off, competing to see who can collect the most carts making a competition out of this.
You'd have colleges purposely leaving carts badly parked outside so they could cash on it.
You'd even have colleges sabotaging the mechanisms to store the carts just so people couldn't use it and they were able to rein them in for cash.

You're thinking individually, which isn't a problem but doesn't give you much answers here. 10 dollars ain't a problem but the company isn't just gonna pay you. They are gonna pay everyone those 10 dollars and once it all adds up, it will be quite a fucking lot of cash just for storing carts.
For comparison, there was an airline company that simply removed an olive from the meals they served during flight and they saved millions in cash.

Technically that's what school should be about, your bonus would be a nice office job instead of parking shopping carts if you had good performance. And although I despise "the college meme" because it comes from faggots that think all higher education is liberal arts, it's sad to see that americans don't even have that option anymore.

Also say hello to Affirmative Action and similar programs, because why would you put any effort when the black guy or latino woman is still going to get a better job than you?
It's hard to not be racist when people keep pushing those things in name of ending racism…

That doesn't happen. Most affirmative action standards have been much more beneficial to women. You should be attacking nepotism and modern connection-based hiring, not minorities

I'll give you an actual example that's happening right now then.

There's a company in america making a robotic burger flipper. It's essentially a machine where you put the meat, vegetables and bread in a few receptacles and then press a button to ask for a burger. It's the size of a large stove since it comes with one included but it's perfectly capable of cooking you a burger provided you "feed" it the ingredients.
You implement those things in a McDonalds and you only need someone to stock it in the morning and every now and then plus someone to serve orders. Supposedly it's actually faster than a human.
This is for burgers, fries already exists since it's much simpler and drinks too.

Why hasn't this thing been implemented yet worldwide? Because it's costly. When considering these types of solutions, those buying make a cost analysis study that tries to answer the following questions: "If I buy that, how much money do I save compared to my current system?" and afterwards: "How long till the savings end up paying it's cost?" and so far said burger flipper would take several years to cover it's cost.
Now what happens if the price of human burger flippers goes up? Suddenly the same robot burger flipper, at the same price, pays itself off much sooner.

You remenber seeing a rally and some protests in NY about the minimum wage a few months back? You know who organized and financially supported those protests?
The guy that owns a company that makes robo burger flippers.

You seem to have a very bad grasp of economics. Terrible even.
"the more demand there is as long as their is supply"? If the demand increases the supply diminishes. Unless you increase production of course, but since the one who controls production is also the one controlling the prices, you essentially give him free reign to decide how much he will charge for the same thing.

No they aren't. The 8hour work day meme was a mistake. Perhaps a necessary evil for the industrial revolution to happen but it's still a mistake for human lives and thankfully it will soon end thanks to "lights out" factories, pretty decent AIs and algorythms for management and Industry 4.0

Hey dipshit! I went to college for more 5 years than some schmuck brooming the aisle in the supermarket. I worked my ass off to learn how to program robots and learn advanced math, several different programming languages, lots of knowledge about eletricity and magnetism, electrical instalations and tons of other crap. This wasn't handed over to me, I actually had to work to get said education.
If someone doesn't want to exercize their brain muscles and is happy with lower paying jobs, that's their decision to make just like you can decide to smoke and drink till you die of cancer.
But I worked hard to get a job as an engineer and I will be paid more for said job because apparently not many people can or want to do it and I did wanted to work hard for this and still work now in my job.

So fuck outta here, with this "equal results" society. As far as I care, everyone had a bunch of oportunities to get an higher education and fancy engineering jobs if they wanted. Even poor people have scholarships and other programs if they work for it. If they choose not to, that's their choice. But it's simply not fair that I'd be paid the same as someone that did not worked as hard as me.

And if you have trouble understanding that, you can go back to Russia and wonder where all the great scientific achievements went off to, what's braindrain and why won't people strive for perfection?

You've got two posts there stating that an increase to minimum wage wouldn't increase demand for products and two posts saying that giving people an income not based on labor will result in some (but not all) people leaving the labor force. You're responding with a study that says minimum wage increases don't cause people to be fired. I fail to see the relevance.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Factories just moved to China for efficiency reasons, they won't magically reappear if you increase minimum wage. They would even flee even more.

I'll ask my local mcdonald worker.

I work engineering too and you sound like a pompous asswipe. Not everyone can enter university and there are a million different situations one can be in. You don't get to tell other people to suffer because they didn't 'work hard like me'. Fuck outta here with your social darwinism shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are no burger flippers at McDonald's. The patties come pre-cooked.

life is 100% about luck

He got an internship you say? maybe because he has good looking genes or just happens to have a personality that the boss fancies, you know, things that you CANNOT CHANGE OR AFFECT actually end up determining whether you have it good or rough in life (just like being born a woman or good looking reduces the overall difficulty of life). bigshots don't go giving internships away to people they don't like simply because "hurr dey put in da effort", effort is worth jackshit if you don't bring in RESULTS. Effort is a secondary activity that only promises results if you're born with the properties that make a SOLID BASE.

Lets put it this way: if you want to build a house, you need solid ground to build on. if you have no solid ground, you're fucked, sure you can try to make a shoddy hut for yourself but as soon as a strong rain comes the land will turn into mud and take your "effort" (the house) with it, which DOES NOT MEAN that if you have solid ground you can build a shitty house with no support, that will also get blown away. thats real life.

It all depends on your specific situation. People have this attitude that "oh just do X and you'll get a job no time", no. It's never "just" do X, because X is fucking hard and often doesn't work. You can do better by trying a bunch of different things, but then you're doing ten difficult tasks instead of one, so it's even more soul crushing. But that's what you have to ready yourself for.

If you gotta attack the person and not the argument, you don't have a point to make.

Damn straight not everyone can enter. It takes effort studying enough that you can be admitted in one and that's how it should be. Universities aren't foster homes to accept every fuck up in society, they have limited slots that should be given to those that prove they deserve them with their own work.

And there are a million different helps given to you by the government and even private companies to help boost you out of the shithole you might be in. It's your own damn fault if you don't use or squander them.

And they don't get to have the same salary I get despite working less than I do. Social Darwinism exists for a reason, dipshit. You make bad choices, you live with those decisions. Sucks that life carries on after 20 and you gotta leave with the consequences of your previous life.

You were give loads of chances to get a good job in life, you threw it all away for cheap easy fun when you were young, you were given even more chances to get your shit together later in life and you still said "fuck no, that's too much work".
Well fuck you, kindness has limits.

They still gotta heat them a bit and some places don't get them cooked. Where I live, you actually get to see the kitchen behind the counter and I still see them cooking. For now :^)

Life is 100% about seizing opportunities around you. Missing them isn't an excuse for fucking up, it's still on you.

Anything STEM related, you can go there with good looks and it's not gonna help. The jobs where higher education actually matters are only available to those with actual higher education. Nothing else will help you but hard work.

"Bigshots" give out internships because about 66% of your salary is paid by the government in financial aids and they get some bonus regarding discounts for social security. They essentially adquire an employee for 33% of market value and with a few tax breaks for bonus. They don't even give a fuck about you, they'll give you some menial task that nobody else can be arsed to complete and call it a day.

You can talk in hypothetics all you want, and I guess I'd be an asshole if I were to just assume what your life situation currently is and why you're talking like a loser, but I'll tell you how things actually happen with live examples of things I did saw:

A women working on a company I was an intern in called in sick and requested 3 months of medical leave. During that time, she's only paid 1/3 of her salary. Problem is, she was doing some work that needed to be done so the rest of the staffed wasn't overworked.
So what they did was hire an intern for 3 months to fill in that position and with the government programs, they only pay 1/3 of her salary, the government pays the rest.
In the end, that company saw the same amount of work done for 2/3 of regular price. Who got shafted? Both employees since the intern was only there temporarily for 3 months, precarious situation, and the other woman only made 1/3 of her salary during that time.

This is what matters to those companies, money. Wanna know how I got my current job? Because apparently almost nobody can be arsed to learn how to program robots (despite how bloody basic it is) to the point that the first interview I got with a company working in that area flat out gave me a contract for a year.
Wanna know what recommendations I had at the time? That I always showed up every day for work. That was it, the only thing that the boss said was impressive about me.
I show up for work and with the knowledge to do the work they want and that's enough to get me a fucking nice job as engineer programming robots all day.

That's my life story, not some fantasy theory that only happens in my head to justify the fuck ups in my life.

Lets get real faggots

There should be NO minimum wage. You should only be paid for the VALUE you PRODUCE for the place you are EMPLOYED.

If you are so stupid and or lazy that you only produce $2.00 a hour of VALUE then that's the WAGE you should be paid.

fuggen commie retards,go stand in a fucking bread line,it's the future you want

Technically, no. You still want people making a decent amount of money (decent here means minimum wage) so they can spend it and boost the economy. You really don't stand to win anything from poor people since they produce nothing but they also don't consume at least economically.

Ideally you'd have a society with 4 hours work per day being paid quite a lot but there'd be a job strictly for higher end jobs. Curing diseases, creating new machines, putting a man on the moon etc.
All factory work would be done by robots and all management work would be done by AIs.

Then you could have a living wage, paying everyone well enough to get by with a decent life but without luxuries.
That way the only people running for serious jobs would be ambitious and\or passionate about those roles, not because they gotta win some cash to live.
Said salaries would be seen as a reward for passion and excelling in your job, not just a carrot for a donkey.

You'd avoid the "think of the poor people" with a minimum wage, keeping them contributing to the economy but keeping them out of the workforce where they have no business to stand in. And as a bonus, every single form of art would be strictly a job of passion too since you could only get money out of average citizens if you were better than a meal and everyone that actually works a job isn't likely to be fall for "pop star idols" and spend their extra cash on them.

That's why your niggers in inner cities can't get jobs, the minimum wage requires that the employer get someone with more experience, so they actually put in the economic worth their paid. Poor niggers can't even start on the job ladder. Thanks LBJ

Who would you rather pay 15/hr; some no experience nigger or an experienced hard working person?

To add to that, webm related is the result of single motherhood. Caused by welfare.

Well, first off the bat you're probably talking about reactionary republicans, you know… the ones who either already have quite a bit of money or the ones who actually believe that having no minimum wage is a good thing. Basically people who only care about muh money bags.
Not necessarily. Just because the poorest get more money for what they do doesn't mean it will decrease crime rate. What will definitely lower the crime rate is better trained officers and more of them who are actually willing to do their job.
NO it is not. They rake in billions of dollars a year by being an international company with no boarders. Not to mention their insane preservatives that keep the food good for years on end.

...

...

...

You also aren't aware of these opportunities unless you are taught to seize them and identify them.

Like what? How would you know what he was offered?

You can't reasonably expect someone in their teens and early twenties to always make the right choices

No, the middle panel is how it actually does work. The problem then is that those $20/hour jobs at the top of the hill are now only worth 30% more than minimum wage instead of 200% more than minimum wage.

I think you need to open a business. It will be a life changing experience.

because they are now subsidising the floating shits

Yeah, I'll open a business and then fire all of my employees and see how far that gets me.

I still can't see problem with that. If we'd stick to your logic, we would reimplement slavery to give everyone work and stop technological progress. Machines should work hard instead of people working as hard as machines.

He's an evil monster, that's why user

that's actually what marxists want

Not that I don't understand the concept of overheard and such, but still.

California already did this.

Prices raised, companies automated more. $15 an hour has no basis because the number was pulled out of your asses. The actual minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation, which is around $10-11.

So I'll give you that it needs to be raised but not to the amount you believe is "fair".

because it will destroy the fucking economy.

It's not about prices, it's about economics. Those businesses won't be able to afford paying the same number of employees more money. They will cut back employees, either by hours by amount of workers.

Second, the people who support raising the minimum wage support policies that drive down wages.

Lets say you have a company and there's 5 available positions. If you have 4 people applying, you need those employees, so you offer them better wages and conditions than the other places they have applied to.

Now imagine you have 5 available positions and 200 applicants. You can just make the positions as shitty as possible, and you'll probably find someone who will take a horrible job because they need the money.

And where does this all tie in with policies that drive down wages? Leftists want to let more people in, to compete for more jobs. We already have high unemployment, you want to increase available jobs and decrease available workers until it reaches parity. Once you have demand for workers, you can import more workers via immigration.

Finally, imagine you have a business, you can afford to pay all your workers a total of $100 an hour. At $10 an hour, you can afford 10 workers. But at $15, you can't afford that many, you can only afford 6. So, you have two choices, you can raise your prices or you can cut workers and just make them work harder for fewer hours to maintain the $100 an hour budget you have.

The big fallacy leftists make is that the company will raise the prices. But they won't, they will raise their prices, their competition won't, and then everyone will go to their competition because they are cheaper.

Not only that but you have the situation where things get automated. Now you are removing jobs from the job pool, while leftists are still importing more foreign workers that want those jobs. Supply and demand, too much supply of workers for the jobs, the wages and price goes down.

It's another episode of wagecucks and poorfags defending their piss poor wages

tl;dr- 'Feels good to be evil bro'

We aren't talking about small businesses we are talking about giant corporations with a surplus of money.

I don't think you know how does it work in reality.

Imagine having a little shop selling dragon dildos. You know, that by standing there and selling them you earn about 100 € per hour. How much will you pay employee? Minimal possible amount, of course.

The only jobs destroyed by raising minimal wage (if we don't take into account automatization) are jobs which create less value than minimal wage, and such jobs will end anyway because such business is at brink of bankruptcy.

there are people that would like to work for less than $15/hour and people that would like to hire them

but the government steps in and says no, making a business unviable and a person unemployed

that is why

You've got it all backwards. An employee that only brings in $15/hour of revenue to the company is not one that's worth hiring in the first place. It doesn't make sense to scale back the hours of an employee that's bringing in $70/hour of revenue because you have to pay him $15/hour instead of $10/hour. Every hour you cut from his schedule after the wage increase is $55 you're choosing not to earn. When all of the corporate overhead is accounted for, the wage increase might have significantly cut your profits, but you're not going to fix that by firing the people actually out there making your revenue. What you do instead is trim your corporate fat and increase your prices. Prices don't have to go up 50% to cover the difference between $10 and $15, they only have to go up 7% to cover the difference between $70 and $75 (the actual value of that minimum wage employee's labor).

Let's compare two Countries with radically different ideologies. One has a high minimum wage and another a low one, for the same GDP and same wealth per capita. One will have a bar with 5 employees paid little and no unemployement. The other will have only one employee with minimum wage but 4 people will have a tougher time finding a job. Which one is fairer?

Also the sole worker will have a hard time every day at work where the same business that can employ more will have less stressed employees.

pick one.

Your abstraction is retarded. I'd choose 5 people working 33.6 hours a week so bar can go non-stop and employees will divide everything they earn among themselves.

Nobody profits from your poverty while several people actually get a lot of neat stuff when you're a hard working citizen.
Both the state and even private companies or schools will go to great lengths to not only give you the opportunities to attain good careers but also to inform you of every option available to you.
Not necessarily out of altruism of course, but because everyone gets something from putting you in the workforce.
Just because you kept your eyes shut and never took an interest in all the information they were trying to spoonfeed you doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I don't need to know what he specifically was offered since this isn't about one specific person, but of course you have trouble understanding that concept.
There are programs by the state to get older people working where they literally pay a part of your salary so the company sees you as a cheaper hire. This only lasts for a while but it's intended to give you a chance at proving why they should hire you full time.
There are programs to get older people a degree as well, there are professional schools that teach you good trades where you work hard but you're paid quite well.
There's free money for unemployed people up to 2 years as long as they've previously worked another here, there's voluntary programs.
There's so much shit out there that anyone who knows about even just half of it will feel disgusted looking at you sitting around, waiting for an oportunity to land on your lap.

Yes I fucking can because personal responsibility starts once you stop being a child. Teenagers don't have to wrangle even 1/10 of what adult life will be but they are ready to start making their own decisions regarding how they spend their time, and no blaming mommy and daddy will excuse you.
That time you went to make out with Sally instead of studying in the library? Yep, big mistake. At least you got to touch her boobs.
That first cigarette you had? Really cool. Sucks that it drains your wallet now, despite all the warning you were fed.

It's not. A company has a budget for a salary. If you increase the cost of work, they'll fire some people and distribute the work amongst everyone else so it evens out for them. Except the current workers get more work for the same pay and everyone else is fired.

The problem here is that you're not considering a very simple fact: where will the money come from. If you increase the salary of some of it's workers, the company will have to divert money into that, taking it away from something else, except this isn't possible since they run a tight budget for practically everything.
And please don't say "they should cut on their profits!" because that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what profits actually are.
Protip: even companies that make boat loads of money can be considered a failure, it's never about how much they make, it's about how much they make now compared to yesterday.

Shut your moth demon man

You'd chose the solution that would then let the most people out of the loop. Unemployement ftw

That's a ridiculous exaggeration though. Slavery gets you the labor but then there's nobody to buy what you produce unless you only cater to the 1% and are ready for some horrible competition.

The point here is that you're not worth 15$/h. You might want to earn that much but you simply don't deserve it and no amount of "but I feel like I should earn more!" is going to change that.
Machines WILL replace these kinds of jobs eventually, it's not a matter of "if" but "when" considering Keynesian economics. You want to accelerate it, be my guest. I make the robots that replace you so I even gain from that.

However please understand that you never explain just why exactly the job you used to do for 7.25$/h is now worth about double, despite you doing the exact same thing.
You want to earn more money, then work harder or do a different job.

BWAHAHAHAH Are you serious, nigga?

Surplus of money doesn't even make sense. Money isn't like potatoes that you keep in a bag and there's a surplus when you have more than you can eat.
If this is the level of understanding you have on economics, might as well stop posting and embarassing yourself this much.

Protip: Banks don't want your money at all. In fact, they want you to have their money instead. The more money a bank has, the worse off he is.
Big companies follow a similar phylosophy where they are supposed to keep some "spare change" just in case, but having "surplus money" is pretty fucking terrible for them. That's money that ain't moving around, money that ain't growing and that is the beginning of the end for them.

That means they're getting more hours. If you're making 6000 widgets a day and you fire 10% of your employees, you're not going to continue making 6000 widgets a day without resorting to overtime. You've literally saved nothing, you've only reduced efficiency because output is reduced for every consecutive week spent on overtime.

It doesn't matter. The hour you take from that worker will be done by someone else. The company will still see the same revenue being made, just by someone else.
Meanwhile the worker now has less hours on the clock, so less money for him. Why? Because someone else is earning his share instead.

You mean firing the people at the top that cost an eye to replace? The people that, without them nobody on the bottom layer even has a job?
You mean increasing your prices compared to the competition so you lose your place in the market? That sounds a good way to go bankrupt.

McDonalds could start charing 20$ for every burger and raise their employees salary, sure. But then everyone would go to BurgerKing and McDonalds would crumble.
Is that what you want? Because it gets worse: once BurgerKing loses the competition, they can raise the prices without paying extra to their workers since nobody can buy burgers anywhere else and burger flippers have nowhere else to work in the same job. Great idea!

The second one is fairer.
Unless you're talking about a bar that has enough work for 5 people, in the first country you have 5 people doing the job of a single one, so they earn 20% of a regular salary.
Meanwhile in the second country, the best Bartender can get a full job and everyone else has an incentive to become a better bartender or choose a different career.

In the first country, 4 bartenders are practically stealing the wages of the 5th, while on the second country, the bartender earns what he works for.

If you have 100 employees making 6000 widgets a day (8 hours of work), that's 60 widgets per employee, 7 widgets per hour.
If you fire half of them, the rest of the employees still has to make 6000 widgets, 120 per employee, 14 per hour.
The employees that remain will simply have to work harder for the same value, that's all that ends up happening, they aren't paid more and nobody is hired to help.

This is best case scenario of course, because if the employees that remain can't make that many widgets, than the company will simply produce less. The employees are still fired and earn just as much as usual, but now the company is in a worse financial situation and nobody profited from this.

You're arguing from the idea that they could instead hide more people, produce more widgets and thus make enough money to justify the newer employees when that's just not true.
If they introduced more widgets in the market, the product would be worth less and their profit wouldn't expand, but they'd need to hire workers for that so their expenses would expand.
Money to pay those workers has to come from somewhere and you simply can't explain from where.

no, I wouldn't. Listen, what about you stop being edgy teenager and go read some book. I recommend animal farm by Orwell, he's great leftist author. When you finish reading it, try to think for yourself, what is the difference between sheeps in book and nazis shouting "kill da joos"? Or edgy neoliberals "free market will fix it"? Or communists "kill da bourgeois/americans"? Try to get rid yourself of ideology.

Yes, that's why I got this strange idea, that giving people more money means they can spend more. Ridiculous, isn't it?

this is blatant bullshit. Jobs which are not producing such value do not exist, or at least not in america.

Technological progress should be accelerated as much as possible.

If you'd lower minimum wage, workers doing that job would earn even less. The only one person profiting from that is the boss. Why should he be living luxurious lifestyle off starving workers? We do not live under feudalism anymore, and I do not want to go back.

Well, if it's possible to force everyone to be twice as productive, why not do that? Why not just make one employee make 6000 widgets a day? Then you've cut your payroll expenses by 99% with no reduction in output. That sounds like good business policy to me.

Remind me why Burger King is exempt from minimum wage laws?

Not if the things they are going to buy are now more expensive. They end up buying the same or less.
Go see Venezuela and how much a loaf of bread costs there now. Or better yet, go read up on the Yen in Japan and what happened to it after the war.

Who decides how much a job is worth, mate? What's the committee that decides these things? What's the law that says how much someone should earn doing X job?
Your job is worth just as much as someone else is willing to pay you for it and you can agree or find someone else that gives you a better offer.

If I paid you 50$/h to walk in front of me and open every door I'll go through, that's exactly how much that job would be worth, 50$/h. Not because of some law, not because of a minister or committee telling you what it's worth it, but because I decided I'd pay you that and you agreed. It's that simple, why is this such an hard concept to understand?
If the McDonalds manager says flipping burgers is only worth 7.25$/h, you can take it or you can go work somewhere else that pays you better.
Trying to force this only results in them hiring less people.

Never said anything about lowering it. In fact, it can't be lowered, it'd be disatrous for everyone including the boss if it was lowered.

Because he created the company that is now willing to give you 7.25$/h to flip burgers. To you and thousands of others. He created jobs, he made the economy move and provided burgers for everyone else to eat.
He risked his fortune to do this and thanks to him you can have a safe job that gives you the same amount of money every month. He chose freedom, you chose security.
And considering how you haven't given anything to him yet, he owes you nothing. Unless you start flipping burgers, at which point he owes you 7.25$ per hour you flip burgers.

Because it's not physically possible.
I get that you think you made some clever point here about demostrating some inhuman side of the oposition, but you haven't actually done that.
Companies will try to extract as much value from their workers as they can to minize the number of people they have to hire and then pay accordingly to how valuable said employees are.

So if a company makes 6000 widgets a day with 100 employees, it's because it has done a study on the product and they know a single employee is only able to crank out 7 an hour.
Paralell to this, they did a market study and they project being able to sell about 6000 widgets a day.
They don't make 6000 widgets because they hired 100 employees, they hired 100 employees specifically because they want to make 6000 widgets, not more nor less. and this is point you simply aren't understanding.

The company does not see employees. At 10$/h, all they see is 8000$/day spent on salary to make 6000 widgets. If wages go up, those same 8000$ will not change, they'll just fire workers until they hit the same value because in the end all that matters is this: "We made 6000 widgets to sell at 2$ each, for a total of 12000$ - 8000$, so 4000$ profit per day" and no, they can't just cut on those 4000$ and distribute them to the workers without seriously screwing the entire company.

Missing the point there.
If Burger King fires workers instead of raising prices while McDonalds raises prices instead of firing workers, both still get the same expenses, but Burger King now gets all the clients.
That's why McDonalds will never raise prices, because that's yielding your market share to the competition.

And by the way, if both agreed to raise the prices together? That's cartelization and it's illegal. :)

Is this what they teach you in yuropoor econ classes? No wonder your country hasn't been relevant for 300 years.

I won't tell you how I make by selling my daughters ass.

how they can be more expensive if we live in "free market"? employees can not just rise their prices to secure their heavenly incomes.

Under our current capitalist regime? The market. If you are employed to manufacture dragon dildos, it's because your boss can sell them for more money than he pays you.

yes, this is some nice strawman

WHY? Why the hell it can not be lowered or raised? Was it decided 1000 years ago by some all knowing wizards? Minimal wage can, and should be changed. As productivity in society rises, wages should rise too.

This is too much ideology for me, let's not argue about it.

Yes, and they should already be extracting the maximum amount of labor out of their employees. Why would you employ 100 people to do a job 90 people could do just as well? If 10% of your employees aren't adding value to your business, you're doing something incredibly wrong.

Burger King won't be able to serve all of those customers after their huge staff cuts and some customers will choose to pay slightly more or receive smaller portions at McDonald's in order to avoid the long lines.

employers*

...

You're an idiot with an horrible grasp of economics trying to argue that your selfish opinion of "I should be paid more to do the same job!" has any validity.

The current economy model that most civilized countries uses, including and especially America, is Keynesian economics.
The economy grows at a steady pace based around debt and investment done by private owners (i.e. it's not the burger flippers) with inflation and wages having to accompany each other carefully together.

If wages are too high, money ain't worth shit, you get poor billionaires (check Venezuela) and companies stop hiring people witch leads to a vicious cycle that you as an American should no better than me since it already happened in your country once.
If wages are too low, the population has no buying power and companies sell less, so we go back to the exact problem.

This is why wages have to CAREFULLY accompany inflation exactly and, in theory, it's the job of the government or the central bank (depending if you're Orthodox or Keynesian) to balance any odd fluctuation.
According to the other user, this means minimum wage should be about 11$/h considering inflation, not 15$ just because you feel like it.

You posted 2 contraditory statements. If it's a free market, a company can indeed charge more for the same product just because it wants to.

Glad we got that sorted out because that is indeed how things work.

You do not know what a strawman is. I'm not trying to represent an argument said by you in a badly constructed way, I'm giving you an example that apparently you can't refute for obvious reasons.

Read up above about what happens if you change the minimum wage.

Not at all, it's pretty simple: the millionaire does not know how much money he is gonna make every month. You however do know.
He is risking his money investing it for the possibility of winning money, while you are investing your time for the certainty of winning money.
Let's put it another way, if someone was to buy a lottery ticket and won, would you say it wasn't fair that he won a lot of money while everyone else that only buys KinderEggs only gets toys?

You didn't actually said anything about the amount of workers in the factory, you just agreed with me.

Yes it will, they just have to ask their employees to work twice as hard for their wages, something they can do because there's thousands of other people waiting for a job that will agree to that.

And even if some customers choose to pay more at McDonalds, it's still a shift in the market towards Burger King. It won't happen from night to day but as the clients shift from one to the other, Burger King can now hire more employees to open more restaurants and keep the new clients.
That however doesn't mean more jobs since everyone at McDonadls is losing theirs and we are walking towards an involuntary monopoly.

Let's say that you have 100 employees in both companies at 10$ per hour and you force that to the double. You know what you get in the end? McDonalds goes down and BurgerKing now has 100 employees winning 20$ per hour, working twice as hard (because there are 100 unemployed who will take their job given the chance) but now burgers cost double. Congratulations, you've ruined the burger economy.

of course, but there is some kind of competition. Raising minimum wage by 5$ doesn't mean that everything will cost 5$ more.

How can you agree with me on this, and then say this:
Are you retarded?

I know we are not living in mussolini's italy where corporate profits were insured by state, but you are under great risk only if you are normal worker trying to invest your savings. Rich and powerful are actually risking only tiny fraction of their wealth.

didn't ment to sage

Wouldn't it be better to make goods and services more affordable rather than just paying people more? The dollar (in America) is already losings it value thanks to the fed.

Once you raise the miniwage you're going to have to start paying people who are worth $15, and that's not looking good for low skilled people. Plus small business can't even afford to pay that, so that makes them hire less workers.

People aren't going to lower the cost of rent you silly bird

A increase in supply and competition can fix that.

You're a fucking retard who's screaming that the sky is falling over something that isn't actually particularly important. That $11/hr figure is completely arbitrary, just as arbitrary as $15 or $5. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr won't cause mass unemployment, it will just reduce the effective wages of people working jobs that currently pay $15-25/hr. It's not a good thing, but it's not going to ruin the world.

What the fuck are you even trying to say? It takes X amount of time to make a widget. If you can make it take 0.9X amount of time, why would you not do that regardless of what the minimum wage is?

Define "work twice as hard." Are you going to double all of the appliances in the kitchen? Or just make someone work really hard to cook fries in half the time? How do you take orders twice as quickly? Throw customers out if they take more than 15 seconds to state their order and pay? Why wouldn't all those customers who get thrown out just walk next door to McDonald's?

If you think increasing minimum wage actually does anything you're a literal child and need to finish high school economics. This is baby shit everyone should know, but for some reason libtards never seem to understand it.

Ironically, it seems to be the conservatives who understand it the least in this thread.

If you raised the minimum wage that high, I would not have a job and so would beginner young people. You'd put a lot of people out of work and increase the demand for skilled workers ironically… On top of that, skilled workers would not come into being because they wouldn't be able to get jobs meant for unskilled workers in the first place because those jobs would never justify as $15 dollar minimum wage.

Fuck off you retarded liberal.

The choice to hire or not is not based on whether the actual wage exceeds market wage, moron. It's based on whether the company can or cannot make more money from hiring people at that wage. Even if it's less profitable, there still is profit. So companies will still employ people. Only automation changes this, and that's a small difference.

And being paid little isn't how a worker acquired skill.

Oh, I am glad they turned back on flags.
The choice of hiring goes based on how much a workers skill is worth. So lets say you decide to start a small retail shop selling embroidered apparel. If it costs 6.50 to embroider an item, 10 bucks to buy the item and 8 bucks to ship it in, 500 to rent the space per month, you'd have to sell at least 60 items for a 10% profit in order to justify his wage. And lets say the wage is 24, or 15. Either way, you would need to sell 600 items in order to make a good profit off the venture.

And that's assuming there is a lax return policy and not other costs infringing. They will not hire people who they are not completely confident are not going to mistakes. Like a billing error. You also have to judge whether or not you will keep that employee based on the errors he makes, this limits the amount of times an employee can make a mistake without costing the company money. If a janitor fails to clean the toilet properly, than you can simply instruct him to clean it better.
If a retail clerk orders the wrong thing and does it to a point it costs more to cover his mistakes than keep him employed (on a net basis) then you let him go.

As someone who has worked in the promotional item business, if I had a 15 minimum wage, I would have been dropped after the first wrong order.

Lower wage leaves more room for mistakes and results in more room for growth.

You say this but then you repeat my own point: as long as they can be profitably employed at the higher wage they will be.

A higher minimum wage will not create the kind of unemployment you imagine, therefore employers will have the same group to hire from.

Wrong Swede.
Look at commiefornia, their unskilled and young workers aren't employed at the movement. The bar has been raised and the pool of people is different. The base and young will not be employed with a $15 wage.

That happened all over America, not just high minimum wage places, and it happened because a general hiring slump: a recession caused not by minimum wage but by insufficient demand leading to excess capacity.

Do I detect a bit of respect for that little bitch palace?

No it didn't, Texas is a good example of this. Low minimum wage, plenty of low skill workers that got trained into higher skilled workers to justify a higher wage.
Like I said, a higher wage eliminates lower skilled workers from the hiring pool.

The slump happened all over America. Minor differences between states doesn't change this, and they do not support your claim that minimum wage has anything to do with eliminating unskilled workers from the pool.

There is only one reason less skilled workers will be eliminated from the pool, and that is lowered employment, a situation that happened all over America until recently, and America is still recovering from. Millions upon millions of Americans went back to school on student loans or became officially unemployed. That absorbed all the new unemployed.

The problem with minimum wage going up is that it creates a work force whose pay is hard to maintain. A business who employs 3 girls who work for $11.35 an hour (the new minimum wage since you seem to be in BC) work for a total of $34.05 per hour… But if you raise the minimum wage all the way to $15 an hour, suddenly that's $45 an hour, as if they were employing four girls at the $11.35 wage (which is still more expensive than the previous $10.85 wage that made those 3 girls cost $32.55). That's PER HOUR. And if all three girls are working full time, with each girl working 5 days a week at 8.5 hours a day, that works out to $96.48 a day per girl. That's $482.38 a week per girl. Which amounts to roughly $1929.52 a month .. per girl. That's $6000 a week at $11.35. Now we raise those wages up to $15.

$127.50 per day, $637.50 per week, $2550 per month. $7650 for all labor in a single month. Now the question becomes how much does the business make? Can they afford all three girls now? Maybe instead they need to cut the girls down to part-time and only allow them to work 4 days a week. Or maybe make them work 6 days a week and cut out one of the girls.

This is not an ideal situation for either the business or the girls, because either the business might begin to sag under the weight of those wages, or the girls might get hurt either by one losing their job entirely, or all three girls getting their hours and thus their wages cut.

If they work 4 days a week each, that's still only $2040 a week. Which makes the same wage affordable once again, but now the problem is that the business might be short-staffed. It's easy to alternate the days off for 3 girls working 5 days a week. Try to alternate the days off for 3 girls working 4 days a week that doesn't leave the business poorly staffed. Certain nights of the week have more business, so it makes accommodating those days downright ghastly.

Some guy is like "well if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, that means that they'll have more money to spend, so more people will go and they won't have to cut hours." That's horseshit, for one and two that means that the $15/hr isn't going to help anyway because if people frivolously spend that extra capital that means that they still aren't benefiting from the almost $5 hike.

This is just an example for a restaurant, now imagine other businesses. Mom and pop shops, corner stores, 7-11s… Smaller places that might do nice business, but might reconsider how many employees they have when they have to pay half as much more per employee per hour. This effect only really hits places that pay minimum wage as is, and the reason those businesses work for a lot of their employees is because it's minimum wage. They might lack the experience needed for higher wage jobs, they might be total fuckups who can't do anything at a higher pay grade, etc.

There's already an unemployment rate of roughly 10%. I expect that this change could actually increase that number by more than the dollar value that the wage will increase by. At least 7%. 17% unemployment. Places that hire 3 people might choose to go with 2, places that hire 6 might choose to go with 4, etc.

The thing about the minimum wage is businesses pay that much to their workers because they can. They can afford to pay for those workers because it doesn't hurt their bottom line. But once you raise the minimum wage by one half, that means that they can't afford to pay for those workers anymore. Either these people have their hours cut, so they don't see the benefit to a minimum wage cut, or people get laid off and then the minimum wage hike didn't improve their lives at all, it actually hurts them both in the short and long run. The only way you can really make a standard of living improvement is by paying people a guaranteed income, and then allow them to work on top of that. And then you have to raise taxes.

See, there's no fucking magic bullet in all of this. Even if you manage to come up with a strategy that makes a wage of living work, and you come up with a tax system that makes income tax on top of that work .. you still have to somehow manage to keep certain variables from fucking it all up. Keep the inflation down, keep your currency strong on the world market so you don't end up with people using money as fuel for the fire to keep warm (like they did in Germany after National Socialism aka the Nazi party were deposed and removed from power and their money lost all its value).

And then figure out how to protect your country from the likes of George Soros, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump bankrupting you.

Pic slightly related.

All these faggots claiming it would cause massive unemployment without a shred of evidence.

Are you just a really good troll, or an asshole?

...

(checked)
Very nice post leaf.

Neither, but you're retarded. Companies don't hire people because it doesn't hurt the bottom line. It always hurts the bottom line.If they can get by on three people they already are. I'm not saying there wouldn't be job loss but you don't even have the idea what mechanism causes the job loss.

Oh, here we go. I didn't realize we have a PHd in Economics on our hands. So go ahead, since you seem to think you know better than economists everywhere, and explain to us. Show us the light and explain to us why this won't hurt people.

No no, do go on, I want to hear how increasing the minimum wage by nearly 50% is not going to impact people negatively. If the cost of labor goes up, then either you reduce the labor, or the cost of your goods and services goes up, and then you'll get less business anyway or the minimum wage is effectively useless if every business compensates via inflation.

EXPLAIN TO US HOW RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL MAGICALLY FIX THE WORLD AND ONLY HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT, YOU FUCKING MASSIVE FAGGOT.

Go back to sweden cuck.

This is a straw man. Instead I claim the benefits outweigh the harm.

So you provide no arguments, you merely say "no, you're wrong" and then you leave it at that and insult me no less. I explain with logical points why this is a problem, and your best response is effectively "NO U."

So to you I will suggest that you watch the movie Zaat, because it's just as nonsensical as your argument points.

I already gave some of my reasoning. It's the demand, dummy.

And I already explained how those extra wages being expected to stimulate more demand doesn't magically guarantee that it will create more demand. And if people frivolously spend their newfound wealth, then all you've done is created a monetary blackhole. You're paying minimum wagers (which by the way, also includes people who don't get paid minimum wage, now people who are getting above current wage will be affected to) extra money. You're paying people who were getting competitive wages more money. So now someone who was getting $14.50 an hour is going to become minimum wage, thus his "above minimum" salary is gone, and he's getting paid minimum wage… So what's going to happen, is his job going to raise his wage by $2 instead of $0.50 to keep him above minimum wage?

You have to remember that this isn't purely MINIMUM WAGE ONLY. Anyone paid sub-15 now getting 15 impacts them. If someone's gotten 3 raises since they started working, that means that either you effectively wipe out their raises, or you now have to raise their wage to compensate both raises and minimum wage.

"Benefits outweigh the harm" is shortsighted, because it assumes "this only happens to a small population of those working." More than 50% of people get paid less than $15 an hour.

Someone who has had their wage raised by 3 times should by a $15 minimum be paid $16.50. This is just one example. You've got very shallow understanding of the whole situation, it would seem.

I have to work now, I'll respond later if the thread is still here.

And you continue to ignore and refuse to enter the cost of doing business into your economic model. Paying workers costs a business a lot of money.

What you think you're saying is that there are benefits to this.

What you're actually trying to say is that all businesses can afford and sustain this. Presumably socialists claim they have coffers of money they're squatting on and shorting the workers.

Open a business and find out for yourself how dense you are and how expensive it is to run a business. Not only do you need to keep the doors open and provide for you and your workers, you have to grow. The only way to do that is through profits, and when you're deep in your ass investing in your business you can't afford to fucking pay your workers 50% more money for them to do the exact same fucking amount of work, no improvement.

That's not an investment, it's pure loss to a company, and minimum wage workers are not worth it. No professional skills, education, or training required; easily replaced.

If you wanted to enter a higher earnings bracket, you'd support abolishing the minimum wage, which actually hurts everyone. Ask yourself why the fuck so many people have to depend on this slave wage. If businesses weren't wracked with this burden they could actually afford to hire more, providing more job access and more opportunity for workers to earn skills and move into higher earning positions. Businesses would have more money to invest and provide more goods and services to the economy. Everyone is fucked over by minimum wage. It's noting short of a standard for poverty.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I feel that part of the problem is school. We're taught to accept the idea that "hey you get what you're given and you take that," and the idea of even negotiating your wages or salary is just like a "hush you" sort of topic in any career and personal planning class. Instead of trying to help people raise their ability to articulate and negotiate, instead we'll keep them all in this awkward atmosphere and so everyone feels like they need to walk on egg shells because that's the work culture that kids are being bred and indoctrinated into.

The idea that your first 90 days you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all .. the whole atmosphere of work, and say your first job is a really scary thing. Poor kids these days don't realize how poorly they have it, because this is how they're broken in.