Why are people against increasing the minimum wage again?

In California, there is a proposal to increase the minimum wage of currently 10 dollar to 15 dollar in 2022 in gradual steps.

There are 18 million Californians employed. Apparently about 20% of them make less than 15 dollar, with only 120,000 making 10 dollar or less.

So, we are talking about 3.5 million people who would get a pay raise between 5 and 0.1 dollar an hour. On the assumption that the average pay rise if 2.5 dollar an hour and given the fact only 55% of the people who would be affected are full time workers, it is reasonable to calculate the yearly increased wage as 1200 hours times 2.5 = 3000 bucks per person. 3k times 3.5 million is 10 billion.

This would significantly offset social welfare payments made to lowly paid workers in California which currently depend on food stamp and housing subsidies etc.

As to inflation, California's GDP is 2 trillion dollar, so this increase would only add 0.5% to inflation by 2022, minus the spending not necessary any more for social welfare, so probably just 0.2% to 0.3% inflation.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html?_r=0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

because people who worked to get to say $19 won't get raises and will go from doing ok to moved back to the poverty line

and because alot of fucking jobs arent meant to how you make a living or what you spend your life doing

'98 norcalifag here, about to get a part time job.

Who the FUCK will hire an inexperienced graduate with only 6-7 weeks of internship experience, for $15 an hour?

$15 shills comprise of illegal shits and idiots that can't into negotiating.

On another note, look at Seattle. $15 hour wage, many stores went robotic, cut down on staff or just shut down entirely.

>because people who worked to get to say $19 won't get raises and will go from doing ok to moved back to the poverty line
How so?

>and because alot of fucking jobs arent meant to how you make a living or what you spend your life doing
How so?

I'm a dog groomer and it averages out to around 22$ an hour. We would have to charge way more

Okay, why not raise it to $20?

>Who the FUCK will hire an inexperienced graduate with only 6-7 weeks of internship experience, for $15 an hour?
Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.

>$15 shills comprise of illegal shits and idiots that can't into negotiating.
Look at my OP pic.

>On another note, look at Seattle. $15 hour wage, many stores went robotic, cut down on staff or just shut down entirely.
Going robotic is good. We need a shitton more robotic push in the Western world. A free society is a society in which most manual labor is replaced with robotics.

The wage hike will force businesses to increase prices to make up for expenses, or just cut down on staff. aka higher cost of living, which is already bad enough in CA.

And jobs he was talking about are for the most part, stepping stones to higher employment, like fast food. You lose those stepping stones once you make the hike because businesses won't see the point in hiring inexperienced/fresh people.

>We would have to charge way more
Why? Because you still make 22 dollar an hour? Or because of the 0.3% inflation increase?

>Okay, why not raise it to $20?
Eventually, it should, let's say by 2035 or 2040.

Why not right now? Because with 15 dollar in 2022, full time employees have a decent standard of living, would you not agree?

>inflation
cost of living will go up

increased min wage will speed up inflation. inflation iis bad mmmkay

>The wage hike will force businesses to increase prices to make up for expenses, or just cut down on staff. aka higher cost of living, which is already bad enough in CA.

You aren't into economics, right? You do know that a 10 billion wage increase across CA (which has a 2 trillion GDP) only results in a 0.2% to 0.5% added inflation AKA higher cost of living?

FUCK CALIFORNIA

LET THE WATER BE SHORT AND THE SUN SHINE IN DROUGHT FOR A MILLION MORE DAYS.

I HOPE CHAIN EARTHQUAKES HAPPEN AND IT BREAKS OFF INTO THE OCEAN AWAY FROM AMERICA

>decent
arbitrary, subjective

wrong. californias gdp is falling. their agricultural out put is declining and the people are spending less and saving more. except for food they are paying more than every one else

>Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.
So you're admitting raising the minimum wage destroys jobs? And you still want to do it? wtf man.

>full time employees
All 3 of them.

Nigger read an econ textbook

$15 shills should volunteer to be the ones to have their jobs laid off when a wage increase happens.

GDP has little to do with it, read a textbook, kraut. Nominal GDP does not reflect the standard of living, which for the most part, is shitty in Cali.

Currently, the minimum wage is $10.
And you're also ignoring the first part of my response, businesses have to compensate for the increased expense.

$5 increase in wages is a lot for your normal fast food franchisee, small business, and mom & pop stores.

The real force behind this is the public sector. Govt employees have wages and pay raises indexed and benchmarked to minimum wage. They also don't have to worry about job security as much. A teacher with tenure will enjoy massively increased salary and pensions and no risk of being laid off or reduced to part time.

15$ minimum wage eliminates the ability of someone to negotiate to perform labor for less than 15$ an hour. This is a powerful tool to workers being removed from them. There used to be more theater ushers, dishwashers, etc... Until their jobs became unprofitable. If business owners cannot profitably justify fast food workers, car washers, cashiers, etc... Being more profitable at new wages than additional automation, their positions will be downsized.

Consider how obamacare got subway to reduce all their workers to part time. What was supposed to force employers to pay more (via benefits) to their employees ended up leaving employees worse off.

For myself, I highly value the ability to offer to work for less if I really want a position or want to make myself more competitive. If that was removed from me, I'd have to always be the best option of all options at my cost to my employer.

Also consider regional economy. Paying farmhands $15 an hour to pick citrus, when other states have wages half of that. California will not be exporting lemons and oranges to the rest of the country, but rather importing much cheaper fruit from Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Hey user how do you feel about commiefornia??

I know this. Its not the the 15 dollars they earn per say. But the fact that if minimum wage is 15 dollars people earning 15-25 an hour are going to expect better pay then unskilled minimum wage earners..and so on and so on all the way up.

That could be terrible sure.

My perspective on this is such...

How the fuck can the government justify all the trillions of dollar and incredibly inflationary policies to bail out wall st and large financial institutions.

Look at this shit...nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html?_r=0

Not to mention they have kept interest rates close to 0 for almost a decade now.

Considering the fact they were willing to bend over backwards to protect millionaires and in some cases billionaires...

Is it so fucking terrible to bump minimum wage up so that the bottom end earners who were effected the worse by the economic crisis and the inflation its caused...is it so fucking hard to say heres a few more dollars an hour?

Fuck.

Not that user, and I live here., so.

>no-fun laws (cuz muh peestol grip n muh ded churren),
>lots of niggers and wetbacks where I am (norcal, bay area)
>Most whites and Asians are based
>qts of every race except niggers

>0.3% inflation increase
You're pulling that number out of your asshole.

Didn't that happen in Seattle? But people then chose to work less so that they still get welfare? Making the raise kinda pointless

Hes german, his mind has been rotted from the fumes of the dresden bombing.

I've lived here for my entire life and I agree with his entire post.

>Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.
The major problem with employment right now is a lack of skilled workers.
You have people with joke college degrees working at starbucks. Anyone can flip burgers, why do they need to be paid 15 dollars an hour?
Right now the most under employed group in america is white males under the age of 25. Minimu wage jobs are a stepping stone being filed by people who should have developed a skillset or earned experience, expecting to be paid to wage of a skilled worker. They have closed the gap for unexperinced young people to earn a work history, because they are filling those jobs and staying there.
Low wages should entice you to strive for more, not beg your government to force your employer to pay you more to cook fried chicken.

America's corporate interests have spent decades cucking them into thinking anyone working a minimum wage job is just a lazy slacker looking to leech off the system, and that raising the minimum wage will force employers to fire thousands of people and enable those good for nothing leeches.

They fail to realize that a minimum wage increase would require everyone else's wages to rise in order to keep up, and that the working and middle classes are more likely to spend that extra money and put it back into the economy, stimulating job growth even more as employers have to hire more people to keep up with the increased economic demand.

>My feels the argument
Yes it's terrible to bump the minimum wage up because it doesn't actually help the people it is intended to help. When you impose a minimum wage, you're saying that it's illegal to pay someone less than the minimum wage. So people whose work that is not worth the minimum wage will not be hired. This is especially harmful to low skilled workers who tend to be the most poor and vulnerable in society. Instead of allowing them to work for lower wages and work their way up with job experience and training, we have them priced out of the market and in line for government handouts.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that imposing a minimum wage increases the cost of labor which will result in a lower demand for labor, and price hikes, because businesses will try to offset the losses they face due to a minimum wage hike. These prices aren't just seen in certain industries, they're dispersed throughout the entire economy, if there is a manufacturer I buy from that employs minimum wage workers and the minimum wage is increased, then I'll have to pay more for products I buy from them, and eventually I'll have to raise the prices of my goods and services. Ultimately the minimum wage hike will be paid for by the consumer.

>Instead of allowing them to work for lower wages and work their way up with job experience and training, we have them priced out of the market and in line for government handouts.

The real problem is that we've made it so that the only careers low skilled people without degrees can get is service tier jobs which don't have upward mobility at all because the jobs at the top will be filled by those with degrees, even if you don't need a degree to do the job.

because not all jobs are meant to be jobs that you can live off.

some jobs are intended for college kids looking for some pocket money.

I forgot to mention that also when minimum wages increase the prices of goods and services, this lowers the standard of living of the people not affected by the minimum wage. Let's pretend that I'm not a NEET and have a job paying $20 an hour, and the minimum wage is increased. Now goods and services I pay for will cost more as a result. My standard of living will be successfully lowered.

>what is inflation
You just devalue money, stealing from people who have spent time bullding up savings.
People, and their available skillets have a value in the marketplace, you cannot increase that value artificially. That's not how it works.

The issue really isn't minimum wage. It's businesses have to deal with payroll tax. Liability and regulations. If you reduce those you would have more jobs with a ladder. Right now 90% of Americans work minimum wage. At a big box store you could get a couple bucks more as manager then your done climbing the ladder.

It's easier at this point to just pay a outside company to mechanize your employees the. To grow your workforce.

Keep arguing about minimum wage faggots. It's just a smoke screen for the real issue.

Because people in California are fucking stupid.

The government has fed us the lie that you need a college degree to succeed. Jobs are made artificially inaccessible because of rules, regulations, and unions, not that all unions are bad though.

>marxism ideology and communism is as simple as this image

read more

This. Many jobs certifications make you over qualified. You need a 2 year degree to be a vet tech....which requires you handing the vet things while he works, and cleaning up dog piss...

I am concerned about the use of public assistance among low income workers and how that government funding has been worked into the calculations of employers and employees alike regarding the lifestyle of those employed in these low wage jobs. Although raising the minimum wage past $12 or so would certainly lead to job losses and more automation, that's certainly going to happen in the near future anyway so we might as well do it now. It's shit policy that Wal Mart is being indirectly subsidized by the public tax dollars.

you are a stupid goy. youre assuming the market will stay the same.
it wont.
stop being a stupid goy.

...

You addressed nothing in terms of my point about the moral hazard of having spent trillions of dollars bailing out wall st and large banks though.

The effect of those actions have made it even more impossible to afford bare necessities for the minimum wage earner.

>The effect of those actions have made it even more impossible to afford bare necessities for the minimum wage earner.
Raising it won't make it any easier.

People will get laid off.

>Why are people against increasing the minimum wage again?

Because some people have bothered studying economics before forming opinions on it and have the mental capability to see the unintended consequences of price controls.

>Law abiding employers?
Law abiding employers can't change the fact that if they have little to no profit they can't keep their business open. They'll either have to cut down the staff and force the remaining ones to be more efficient or they'll have to close. The last alternatives are automatizing the production as much as they can or increasing the prices, which will of course make the new wage buying power decrease to the point where the previous one was.

Worse than that it'll decrease the buying power of everyone because the prices in general will increase, making a person that earned more get closer to the poverty line.

Bottom line is that the government shouldn't be touching certain laws.

You throw this fucking stock explanation of why raising minimum wage is inflationary at me.

I understand what is inflationary about it. I actually work on wall st.

but skirt my other point.

>So people whose work that is not worth the minimum wage will not be hired.

Minimum wage jobs are basically... show up on time and run your menial task type jobs. Most of the training you need for these types of jobs are provided on the job. Like who the fuck is not worth minimum wage? LOL.

You also forget it doesn't pay for a large portion of americans who receive benefits to actually find work. 15 dollars and hour might change their attitude.

>That doesn't even take into account the fact that imposing a minimum wage increases the cost of labor

Labor costs go up yes. Its not written in stone that 100% of that cost will roll off onto the consumer. In comparison explain to me how the cost of the risk wall st took is somehow more palatable? The cost of basically recapitalizing our entire banking system is equal to or less important an issue. Though we will be paying down that debt for generations. Your worried about the $40 dollars collectively that a small business might have to pay its employees? As if thats going to be what turns the lights off and closes the doors.

Because governments should never tamper with market prices.

Raising the minimum wage is just a gentrification tool. Raise minimum wage in a city, drive out the low income jobs, low income people and businesses that cater to them. Now only rich people can move in, mfw comfy.

Nigger no one fucking likes the wall street layoffs here.

That doesn't make raising the minimum wage any less retarded though.

>Because some people have bothered studying economics before forming opinions on it and have the mental capability to see the unintended consequences of price controls.

I'd bet 99 out of 100 wouldn't have anything constructive to say about monetary policy yet still claim to be entitled to respect for their opinions on economics.

>layoffs

I mean bailouts sorry famalam

It will precipitate an increase in all pay which will result in inflation

All of the sudden the guy who is a skilled worker making $15/hr is now on the same level as unskilled workers, he will demand a pay raise and it must be given as he is a cut above the unskilled laborers
And so on it goes up the chain

>or increasing the prices, which will of course make the new wage buying power decrease to the point where the previous one was.
Because the min wage employees are 100% of the cost of all cost of living goods and services.

Ugh why is the left so dumb when it comes to economics?

Setting an effective minimum wage causes unemployment. And it causes it in the group of people that proponents of minimum wage hope to help.

In order to understand how it causes unemployment you need to understand what employment really is. Employment is a worker selling their time, effort and productive value to an employer. Depending on a person's skill their time is worth a certain amount of money per hour to an employer. Namely how much extra value that worker can produce in that time period. If I run a hospital and a doctor working 60 hours a week can see a certain number of patients and that brings in $24,000 in profit to the hospital that doctor's time is worth AT MOST $200 an hour to the hospital.

Now when you create a minimum wage you are effectively creating a price floor for labor. A certain amount must be paid per hour for that labor. Let's say $15 is the minimum wage. If you are the above doctor, it doesn't affect you.

But if you are a low skilled person, whose ability to add value is say limited to say $8 dollars an hour the minimum wage does affect you. It makes you unprofitable to be hired by the company because by paying your $15 an hour you will be in effect losing money for the company. Companies that always lose money tend to go out of business hence companies try to lose money.

An otherwise unemployable person is better off working a job at $8 an hour and then using government programs to bring them up to a certain minimum basic standard of living than they are just being unemployed completely and being an even bigger draw on government resources.

>Raise minimum wage in a city, drive out the low income jobs

?

Minimum wage jobs ARE low income jobs. And in my city NYC those jobs are literally just reserved for minorities.

>Governments should not tamper with market prices

Interest rates, discount windows, acquiring trillions of dollars in bad paper to clean off the books of investment banks.

?

The government most certainly does tamper with market prices...like all the fucking time.

Because causing harm for 96% of the population so that roaches who are already on goverment assistance will get more money, which will be worth less, won't help anything

>Interest rates, discount windows, acquiring trillions of dollars in bad paper to clean off the books of investment banks.

Why do you keep mentioning retarded shit like this?

No-one is disagreeing with you that this is tampering. We disagree with both and most tampering which is detrimental.

We're solely talking about the viability of raising the minimum wage and whether or not it's effective.

Just because the Government is doing retarded shit around corporations that doesn't mean we also want them to do it with the minimum wage.

Read this.

If you're still here. What part of the bay area you in user?

>Ugh why is the left so dumb when it comes to economics?

Because like everything else in their agenda it's centered around what feels good, not what works

>stock explanation
Better than an emotionally driven argument, no?

>Minimum wage jobs are basically... show up on time and run your menial task type jobs. Most of the training you need for these types of jobs are provided on the job.
Thanks for proving my point. You won't get that on the job training because you won't get fucking hired period. Businesses won't hire people with no experience if they have to pay them artificially higher wages. It's no coincidence that the average age of minimum wage workers has been increasing, because younger people fresh into the job market are less desired now that they have to be paid more. Unskilled workers can't get experience because no one will hire them if they have to pay an unskilled and untrained worker huge wages. We give people shitty public education and then prevent them from getting jobs and keep them in line for government assistance.

>You also forget it doesn't pay for a large portion of americans who receive benefits to actually find work. 15 dollars and hour might change their attitude.
How will creating more unemployment encourage more people to find jobs? As the price for labor increases the quantity demanded for labor will decrease.

>Labor costs go up yes. Its not written in stone that 100% of that cost will roll off onto the consumer. In comparison explain to me how the cost of the risk wall st took is somehow more palatable? The cost of basically recapitalizing our entire banking system is equal to or less important an issue. Though we will be paying down that debt for generations. Your worried about the $40 dollars collectively that a small business might have to pay its employees? As if thats going to be what turns the lights off and closes the doors.
Of course not 100% of the cost will fall onto the consumer. The effects of a minimum wage hike will be dispersed between multiple factors like employment and prices. I don't even agree with the bail out so I don't see why you bring it up.

It's a cascade effect you raise someone wage not only you'll have to increase the prices (or sell more) to keep profiting but that person will also increase the demand of a product. Of course if the offer of said product is unlimited technically it wouldn't make a difference, but we know that's not the case.

Getting only $8 in profit out of an employee is a very risky business model. Most min wage employees are pulling closer to $20 in profit and that ranges up greatly depending on other factors.

If you came in with a business model that only had an $8 an hour profit per employee I'd tell you to fuck off unless you employed 10,000 employees.

Ok then you support not extending any kind of relief to the poorest earners who have seen....

rent

food

the overall cost of living

....rise as a result of the massive spending and money printing that has taken place to help Wall st. Physically printing money. Does not get more inflationary then that. But thats cool. people can make like 380 dollars a 40 hour week, when the cost of rent is like 1500-2000 a month.

But I'm the nigger for bringing this up.

my current wage is almost double the minimum wage.

think about it.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DOG

What is this crazy shit you have going on that if I think X then I MUST think X.

I think there are certainly ways we should and could be helping out the poor. Raising the minimum wage DOES NOT DO THIS. IT LITERALLY CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT.

If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.

No hate friend, but this is just triggering desu

>It's a cascade effect you raise someone wage not only you'll have to increase the prices (or sell more) to keep profiting but that person will also increase the demand of a product. Of course if the offer of said product is unlimited technically it wouldn't make a difference, but we know that's not the case.

Sure but it's fractional. I make natural gas and make $55 an hour. Someone earning min wage will consume my natural gas product. When they get a raise of $5 I don't, so my production cost of natural gas is the same and the sales price is same to them. Even if to pay for their raise I have to pay another 5% for the products and services they sell to me. I lose out if we don't account for the potential extra income I could earn from them having more free buying power. Like for example they buy new product that uses my natural gas in it's production which earns my company more income and profit and I get a small profit bonus.

If everyone everywhere earned the exact same amount of money and we didn't have fixed structural financing costs or outside from the economy costs then raising or lowering the wage of people wouldn't matter. But we live in a world with more factors to price than the lowest paid employees wage.

Listen shitposter. Don't tell me what to fucking read. I actually live in NY and work as a trader. I know all the supply side arguments against raising minimum wage I hear it every fucking day at work.

Im making a point about whats fair.

How do you say to these banks... here's trillions of dollars then look at the poorest earners and say no you can't have a few more dollars an hour?

The banks made a choice. Washington made a choice. Now they are going to have to fuckin pay up.

as a SCADA geek and field tech who lives in California I support this measure.

>This would significantly offset social welfare payments made to lowly paid workers in California which currently depend on food stamp and housing subsidies etc.

No. You were doing so well until this point. People change their behaviour. People will work fewer hours for the same money so that they can still qualify for lucrative benefits and welfare programs. This has been seen time and time again in cultures of welfare dependency.

It all depends on what the business and what the other associated costs are. There is almost no business whose sole cost is labor. Almost every business will have a cost for things like renting property, paying for equipment and capital goods, administrative expenses, costs of inventory etc. along with labor. Often times labor may only comprise 20%-30% of the total expenses of running the company.

The profit margins of a company are based off of total cost of the company not just the per unit labor cost. And the profit margins in many company's are pretty thin, especially in industries that rely on low-skilled labor. Think like maybe %5 profit margin. The reason the margins are so low is because industries that use low skilled employees tend to have very limited barriers of entry. For example it isn't too expensive nor too hard to start a lawn service company. Especially if you compare it to say starting a pharmaceutical development company.

But if business has only a 5% profit margin and labor accounts for 20% of their total cost of running the business, if the cost of labor goes up 50% because of an increase in the minimum wage that company now just became unprofitable to run. So the owner will close up shop and fire all his employees.

>How do you say to these banks... here's trillions of dollars then look at the poorest earners and say no you can't have a few more dollars an hour?

I agree that this is retarded. I don't think you should further fuck shit up by taking ANOTHER step in the wrong direction. That's all.

>why are you against y?
reasons provided
>but how do you feel about x?
>X does the same thing as y
What does x have to do with y?
>because x is worse than y
>so if you oppose y, why don't you oppose x?
you asked about y.
Answers were given about y.
Why do you expect us to explain x?
>well if you can't, then you can't argue against y.

Op is a literal faggot with tumblr tier b8.

>Literally just repeating the same catchphrase about the bailout
>Calling someone else a shitposter
Wew lad you had me going

>If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
>1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
>2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
>3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
>4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.

I predict lots and lots of 49 employee companies with this model.

What is basic economics?
>wage goes up
>Businesses have to pay workers at that wage
>Businesses products get more expensive to cover cost of wage
???
>Wage stays relatively the same

At the end of the day, the worker getting the wage increase will be able to buy the same amount of things as everything just gets more expensive.

This is a simplistic model, and I do think that there should be some effort to end some of these extremely low wages which just aren't enough to live/save on.

Finally, if want to raise min wage, deplete the labor pool by departing illegals that take jobs from citizens.

Lower labor pool = higher demand for labor = higher wages

>This is a simplistic model, and I do think that there should be some effort to end some of these extremely low wages which just aren't enough to live/save on.

The only way to do that is to make the workers more valuable to employers. This comes down to making them more skilled and productive.

Bernie fags stupidly talk about "Muh free college" but what they really need to look into is better vocational training for many things.

I really wish we in the US would take a closer look at Germany's apprenticeship programs.

This desu senpai

>As the price for labor increases the quantity demanded for labor will decrease.

No. Cost is not the only factor in determining labor supply. If a company has a ton of orders to fill and needs X amount of employees to fill those orders then it will have to hire the proper amount of employees to complete its objective. The cost or the price floor on that labor will have to be absorbed. sure it can be pushed onto consumer but thats not an entirely certain. In reality it would be probably split between the consumer and the company.

>Raising the minimum wage DOES NOT DO THIS. IT LITERALLY CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT.
A lot of the county minimum wage hikes we've had recently haven't been accompanied by any change in unemployment relative to state/regional trends.

The argument that minimum wage hikes cause unemployment is an extension of our general theory of price floors, but that theory in turn is based on the premise of a perfectly competitive market at equilibrium. Critics of minimum wage hikes just assume this to be true no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and if the market isn't at some perfectly competitive equilibrium then an increase in the minimum wage (depending on which particular direction the market is distorted in) may not increase unemployment.

Or tl;dr if employers currently have some anti-competitive advantage in wage negotiations, then we can raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment.

>If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
>1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
>2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
>3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
>4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.

No this is triggering.

You are forgetting that offer is not unlimited and whenever demand increases the stores always increase their prices, even if they still have an offer surplus.

Many of the products you use have a limited offer because they come from overseas and their operation isn't as simple as increasing 15% in raw numbers.

At any rate employers of small business don't have such a big profit margin so any change is dangerous to them.

Yeah of course saying it as a general rule. There is places where it does a okay job.

Deporting all spics and not letting in muslim niggers works better.

You shill fags already have another thread too, you spamming kikefucks

It would force companies to automate more quickly, which would remove the boiling frog effect from the equation of "how can we fuck over the underclass and re-create the feudal system via automation", which in turn the rich people hate.

We are about to enjoy the tyranny of megacorps, but a slower burn on automation makes it less obvious.

And the best way to avoid automating too quickly is by having low-wage workers.

>People will work fewer hours for the same money so that they can still qualify for lucrative benefits and welfare programs.
No benefits for those who work part time if they can work full time.

Minimum wage can be index linked to inflation so the profit takers take the hit.

Increasing prices = increased inflation = increased minimum wage (adjusted quarterly)

Im drawing a conclusion as to the long term effects of the decisions made by the government and the fed. They have saddled us with much higher debt and all of those decisions were directly inflationary for the most part.

This is my reason for changing my mind about minimum wage increases.

I don't give a fuck about the if X is Y argument being thrown at this position.

wtf ? that could work in some littel coutry shop but on global companys ,,,
this dont work that way so basicly i became a part-owner even if i was employed today? and there are some small companys that gets millions because they are working with the OWNERs money no owner whould give 20 % of the profits to the employees in that case that 20 % could be about as much as they get from paycheck in a year ...

...

>Or tl;dr if employers currently have some anti-competitive advantage in wage negotiations, then we can raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment.

I can see this occurring in real life but only in small marginal cases. Like one where an employer's profit margin goes from say 10% to 8%. The problem with this is minimum wage laws really only effect those who are low skilled. Businesses that employ all or chiefly low-skilled labor tend to already have very small profit margins. And the current political trend in the minimum wage movement is not asking for a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, but a gigantic increase up to $15 an hour.

This likely doesn't just decrease profit margins, but completely obliterates them for the company.

But even if it was still profitable but at a lower rate say 4%, why would a business owner invest their capital in the business and assume the added time, effort, and risk associated with running that business when he could just safely invest it in his stock/bond portfolio and forego the time and effort part and likely earn a much higher rate of return for less risk and effort?


I would guarantee you user that if the minimum wage was lowered to say $5 an hour, new businesses would be made that didn't exist before and otherwise unemployed people would have work, and start trying to climb the economic ladder.

The problem is who has money to spend if companies automate? The consumer is broken if they can't find a job.

I never mentioned the labor supply.

You're a part owner of a company if you buy 1 share of it. It's not hard to partially own a business.

I don't necessarily think it's a good idea to do what I posted. It's just a way of redistribution of wealth that would probably work out in an environment where people aren't nearly as retarded as they are.

I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's just a better way of redistributing wealth if you want that to happen. Which I don't.

SOMEONE HAS TO BE ON THE BOTTOM!
The second every business realizes people have more money to spend, everything will go up in cost. When that happens, people originally making 15 dollars an hour will be the new poor and demand more money, which will result in employee striking, which results in no productivity, which results in failing business, which results in people losing their jobs. OR the employees get paid more, and now the people making 15 dollars an hour will still be poor because prices will go up.

If anything, lower the cost of rent. Chinese motherfuckers charging 1000 dollars a month for a cracker box apartment in the worst neighborhoods is robbery at its finest. Sure other things will go up in price, but at least they have the option to not pay for them.

Maybe they'll look into establishing basic income if anything like this ever happened.

>I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's just a better way of redistributing wealth if you want that to happen. Which I don't.

oh phew. You had made such sensible posts, then I see this government mandated socialist ownership schlock and I got worried.

I am happy it was just a thought experiment and not a policy recommendation.