So what would realistically happen if the minimum wage was abolished in America?

So what would realistically happen if the minimum wage was abolished in America?

Massive increase in jobs. Inexperienced workers will finally be able to work. Unpaid internships would become much more rare. Spics and niggers will clean my house for like $3.50

The price of all goods would fall.

r-right guys??

We become Brazil now instead of 20 years from now.

Kek. Libertarians would have you believe so, but fuck no. Or at least not enough to keep up with the drop in wages.

Minimum wage and price of goods are literally equal.

As you raise minimum wage, price of goods goes up. Decrease minimum wage, good price goes down.

>chocolate bars were 10 cents in the 1920s meme!

Yeah, you also got paid 50 cents an hour.

What would happen to all the people making minimum wage now? Their rents aren't going to suddenly drop in line with their pay.

Zero unemployment, massive wage increases

>Minimum wage and price of goods are literally equal.
Sure they are, Chaim. I'm positive when you're getting paid $1 an hour instead of $10 that a gallon of milk will drop from $3 to 30 cents, not just by about half.

>Decrease minimum wage, good price goes down.
And yet America's minimum wage has already failed to keep pace with the cost of goods. Explain this.

And they would steal property worth like $5000
That's what I call making a profit.

Wage subsidies > minimum wage

Sweden is doing fine without a minimum wage.
The secret to a market that works nicely for workers is strong private sector unions.

How would wages increase?

Sweden isn't the dark heart of corporatism either.

more ppl in poverty

My problem with this idea is;
A drop in min wage affects only the lowest earners.

Most of the "middle class" probably wouldn't be earning less.

We would still have a HUGE disparity between the top 10% and lowest 50%.
If prices went down, the ultra-rich would only be more powerful, and thats fucking scary.

then the land of the burgers becomes POO IN LOO CURRY land, have fun pooping on the street

... OR Switzerland, or Singapore.

I tend to think not much would change at all. Even at a discount, the quality of new hires is typically miserable, and all that seems to end up happening is you pay the competent workers extra hours rather than hire morons. That coupled with increases in automation, we're likely on a trend of permanently increasing unemployment.

Businesses would begin offering more entry-level jobs. We're not talking great jobs, obviously - ones at below current minimum wage will be pretty shitty.

But this is still an improvement for people trying to enter the workforce for the first time, in particular. It will make it easier to get a first job and build some work history so you can get interviewed for better things.

Maybe kids would actually pay attention and try in school.

Think a little more about the decisions they are making and how they will lead to a worthwhile career

But probably not, would just lead to more democrats getting elected to take money from those that did focus on a career to those that didn't .

As long as they are liberals there will always be Gimme Dats.

>OR Switzerland, or Singapore.
Sure we will. Contain your shitposting, Australia.

See any 3rd world country.

Average wages would go up as business start to actively compete for employees worth keeping. People would become more loyal to companies and companies more loyal to there employees, staying at a job for 20 years would be a regular occurrence even in industries like food service.

Unemployment would plummet. And if that was combined with ending the welfare state illegitimacy would plummet as well. If a nationwide concealed carry law was then passed the crime rate would plummet and the black population would gradually become more civilized.

Low skilled labor will have an easier time getting a job. Poorfags will have to reconsider where and how they live. Any negative effects in terms of job losses would be rapidly outpaced by economic growth (and job gains, for that matter).

It is important to note that the people who lose without a minimum wage are a relatively small part of the population, but the people who lose WITH a minimum wage are essentially the entire world. It's all relative, and markets without arbitrary price ceilings and floors are going to perform better than the alternative every time. A well-performing market means that even the poorest poorfag can get what they need. It might not be what they want per se, but y'know.

test

Low skill American youths would be able to get entry level jobs. Mexicans would self deport.

>touchscreens at mcdonalds
most disgusting idea I've ever heard

How distorted is your opinion of Mexico that you actually believe the only reason Mexicans leave there to come to the United States is minimum wage? FUCK, dude.

These dudes don't even get paid minimum wage here half the time. Dropping the price floor would be a massive boon to immigrant labor's prospects in the United States, and I would actually anticipate that unskilled American high schoolers would be the ones to lose out. But still, goods will be cheaper for them as it will be for us all, and the cycle of growth would benefit the poor within only a few years.

no

> Inexperienced workers will finally be able to work

This x1000, minimum wage pretty effectly priced me out of being able to work until I was in my 20s, right now it's utterly impossible for inexperienced teenagers to find their first job when they have to compete with people 10-20 years older than them with experience.

>McDonalds will now pay every employee fair, because we are loyal to our employees. In 10 days, you will all get a fair wage!
>Literally 3 days later: WW3 has begun!
>Litarally Sup Forums "ITS HAPPENING! JEWS ARE ATTACKING MCDONALDS EMPLOYEES! MCDONALDS CEO IS BORN IN ISRAEL!"

Yeah, McDonalds will be loyal to their employees. Sure

And what the fuck is it with people acting as though fast food service is 50% of the US economy? For fuck's sake, calm down. Let McDonalds run its damn business effectively.

They must because they're doing it right now. Why the hell would they stop what they're already doing? Libertarians are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet. Niggers have their intellectual shit more together than you morons.

because businesses just hate being able to sell their products and services, right?

get ready for stronger worker unions if that happens

Does this make economic sense?

LETS MAKE ALL JOBS THAT PAY BELOW $15 AN HOUR ILLEGAL TO HELP THE ECONOMY.

That is what minimum wage laws do.

War and fathom.

People wouldnt be able to understand the concept they they should make less then they previously did.

Those raging Bernie supporters would go full rage mode and fuck up the Trump supporters worse then they already do.

What is minimum wage? I don't even know.Who even gives a fuck what it is,and who would wven work for it? I think I was making 9.50/hr in 1989 because I was worth it. I don't even know what I make now,it's like 21something/hour.

Ex con btw.Stopped being stupid and rebuilt my poor white trash life

Have you ever seen the freetards trying to work these things?
>tfw they have to employ someone just to stand there and help people.

If a job can't survive while paying its workers a living wage then the job shouldn't even exist to begin with.

As long as the government doesn't subsidize or legislate advantages toward labor unions, there is no reason they shouldn't exist.

Unemployed people are necessary for wage control because if there is an hypotetical situation with zero unemployed people that would mean you don't have a replacement for your job, you can ask for more and they would have to pay you because they need you. Meanwhile, if there are people waiting to steal your job, you will work for pennies because you need that source of income.

That isn't how supply and demand works, brother. Have you by any chance taken any college-level courses in economics, because it seems like you're just quoting Facebook posts instead of factual arguments.

The fact that someone is taking a job at a given price point is indicative that it is a better alternative than not taking the job. It is why the Chinese work in factories -- being a peasant farmer is worse. And the Chinese that work in those factories are living better lives and taking better care of their families than the ones who stay in the farms. It's an extreme example, but the same logic applies to the poor in the United States. If the wages were unacceptable, people wouldn't work them.

It isn't the responsibility of a business to determine who is or is not too poor to work for them. Why should it be?

Bottom feeder business like Walmart, McDonalds and the like fire their workers who earned the old minimum wage and replace them with even cheaper workers. Welfare reliance increases as wages drop but the cost everything gradually increases exactly like it has for the past several decades despite wages staying the same or dropping. Businesses who replaced their old workforce with cheaper labor use the savings to lobby the government for even more handouts and special treatment.

>Bottom feeder business like Walmart, McDonalds and the like fire their workers who earned the old minimum wage and replace them with even cheaper workers.

This doesn't even make fucking sense that's because you're an idiot making things up.

If you're so concerned with welfare reliance, I'm not sure why you aren't worried about the fact that more people would be on welfare with the steep increase in minimum wage than with the elimination thereof?

People are always on Walmart's dick for "being subsidized by welfare," but the fact is that the only people being subsidized by welfare are the ones who use it for 100% of their income. And that percentage of the population is only going to increase as the price floor on labor increases senselessly.

- Creates army of unemployed;
- Concentrates even more power in the hands of the rich;
- The rich start to persecute and kill the poor;
- The rest would die of starvation;
- Genocide of the working class.

In some places where unions still have some power, war would break out. They would lose due to lack of coordination and resources and the result would be the same: genocide of the working class.

Brazil has draconian labor laws, the fuck you're on about?

Wow, provide a citation at any time.

Isn't that the shit Marx said was going to happen 150 years ago but never did except in countries whose governments actually adopted his policies?

Markets just don't even come close to working the way you imagine them.

It'd be much easier for someone from the middle class to open their own business and have employees. Competition would skyrocket, unemployment would plummet, goods would get cheaper, most people would be wealthier than before.

"Price floors" are a real economic thing, and sometimes they are necessary. Without them, powerful business owners could game the system, undercut competition, and ruin an economy for everyone.

This is the most ridicules argument I've ever heard.
>People should be unemployed so that a few can live comfortably
Who are you to decide whether or not a job is worth someone else having. I get paid 8 an hour, you literally want me to be fired.

I imagine crime rates would rise alongside the stock of private security.

sweatshops and slave labor comes to america.

>[citation needed] of this happening anywhere ever
>inb4 some bullshit where the government is actually the culprit but you're going to try to blame the market

>Slave labor
Pretty sure that's already illegal.

Brazil is capitalist as fuck, you moron. You can't have massive income disparity like you do in Socialism, because that's not Socialism. Brazil, like America, is a shit mud country that simultaneously has some of the richest people on Earth.

Keep arguing that lower wages lowers the cost of living even though wages haven't risen for years, yet the costs of goods and services has dramatically.

>Markets just don't even come close to working the way you imagine them.
Right back at you faggot. Markets hardly work at all. But bribery and extortion work like a charm.

>"Price floors" are a real economic thing, and sometimes they are necessary.

Government control of the uncontrollable is impossible you god damn idiot.

>the quality of life around the world has skyrocketed since the onset of the industrial revolution
>today's poor are better off than the wealthiest people on earth in the past
>fast forward to today
>people on Sup Forums are actually no-shit talking about slave labor, revolutions, massacres, and genocides because the market might have an arbitrary price floor removed

God help us, these are your Bernie supporters.

- Wages have not increased in 50 years.
- Multinational companies are both destroying democracies and the environment, while exploiting disadvantaged workers in poor countries.
- Young people cannot buy houses anymore.
- Our life is not better, as people spend their days slaving off for rich people so they can participate in a status arms race that benefits noone besides said rich people;
- There is no class mobility. There never was class mobility.

You need to get out of your bubble. Facts don't care about your opinion.

not at 1 cent an hour it isnt.

>socialism = good
>capitalism = bad
>Brazil = bad
>therefore Brazil = capitalism

kill yourself, retard

I repeat Brazil has draconian labor laws, inspired by Carta del Lavoro of Mussoli.

Americans on average are wealthier than ever -- the middle class is shrinking because they're all entering the upper middle class... NOT the other way around.

This graph shows you the inflation-adjusted income of different percentages of the population. Red is 2015, the blue line represents 1971. If you are unable to understand this graph and what it means for your argument, you have not studied enough about economics for it to be worth continuing this conversation.

I'm sorry that you live in Poortugal, but the sooner you recognize your own corrupt government is responsible for these social ills, the sooner your country might recover.

Your chart should include markers like "GFC started here"

>comparing our living standards to people 100 years ago
>"We're much better off so quit your bitching"

Don't be ignorant, we have different problems now that didn't exist 50 years ago. Bernie supporters want to create a system to maintain a growing standard of living in the future, not a stagnant one.

Dam you're retarded

LOL!

Your country is even worse than mine on all the facts I presented. Your wages don't grow, your housing market is fucking expensive, the american dream is dead, you are fucking status whores.

You dumb burguer.

burger*

That shit got installed in a popular Mcdo spot downtown near where I work.

Best. Shit. Ever.

Not just that, Brazil is basically a socialist country that has propped up its economy on commodity exports (oil) for years, and the piper has finally come to be paid.

Tell me about these different problems and how they are worse than what the ACTUAL poor faced in the past.

The only reason your hypothetical standard of living isn't growing is because governments have interfered with the market and produced an outcome you don't like. All because they were "trying to create a system to maintain a growing standard of living in the future." Governments can't decide that. It has been tried and failed around the world.

I don't see why you care so much about the American Dream. It's not something anyone is entitled to, and it is arguably the cause of the majority of environmental destruction in the past century. If young people want a house, perhaps they should try looking for one outside the San Francisco Bay Area or New York City.

>what would realistically happen

more people would be eligible for gibsmedats and then your taxes would go up.

literally all niggers would be on welfare and we would have to give more than half of taxes to them

Your taxes would skyrocket because the massive increase in food stamps, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

I would much rather have companies pay a living wage than have to pay it for them through my taxes.

You didn't include the part where minimum wage stayed the same and unemployment dropped back to 5%.

>a brain dead retail/fast food job that any monkey with a few hours of training can perform
>current employees are getting paid $7 an hour or whatever the previous minimum wage was
>new applicants are willing to work for $3.5 an hour, saving several hundreds of dollars per week

I wonder which person businesses are going to employ

I don't really care about welfare usage. The issue is that money is power. Anything that siphons money from the bottom (say, you grant people the "privilege" to work for less than they currently earn, or you open the borders make it easy for business to hire cheap, disposable foreign workers) and funnels it to the top is only going to make the people at the top more powerful than they already are.

You pay more for it when it comes from a company because they defer the cost to you anyway PLUS it stifles growth in the industry. As someone in the thread said before, it shackles businesses (especially small ones) from opening shop in the first place. That's an unseen side effect of price floors/ceilings which nonetheless has serious consequences for the growth rate.

Speaking of which, because the economy will be growing, the "niggers" aforementioned by the posters above you will simply move on to another job, likely outside of fast food service. Perhaps they will be mowing your lawn because of the increase in disposable income you will have.

>13rd salary (yes, you heard that right, Brazilians receive 13 salaries a year and think this is a great conquests of the working class for some reason)
>FGTS (8% of the salary becomes forced saving which is kept in the hands of the government)
>"free" transportation. paid by the employee. makes people living far away be even more discriminated when searching for work.
>30-day vacation
>underage people basically forbidden to work, if young poor people need money they gotta steal, sell drugs or kill

>priced out by minimum wage
This is the most pathetic thing I have read here today. Dumb cuck I had a $10 an hour job at 16. Go borrow a nice shirt/tie and learn to talk to other humans faggot.

When you stop your struggle, you lose. That's what they want you to do. Then, people start turning on each other instead of realizing who the real enemy is. Human dignity is the pillar of democracy and freedom.
It is possible to solve all of this if you tax the top 1% at least 90%, impose harsh inheritance taxes and markedly increase the minimum wage.

>Voluntary work
>Slave labor
Pick one.
If someone wants to work for 1 cent an hour because they think it will benefit their lives why do you want them to not be able to?

*paid by the employer

It won't be much worse than Europe and it's immigrant workers.

Your "fatcat" caricature of business has no basis in reality. When a business makes money, it doesn't just "disappear" into a fat cat's pocket never to be seen again. This is not some mystery, this is the science of economics, and there are many books about it.

There is a reason the poor from around the world come to the United States. When we stop being the best route for the poor to move up (and trust me, the US is a massive step up from these countries), they will stop coming here. It is that simple. And it's not just immigrants who move up. As the chart earlier in the thread shows (), everyone in the US is moving up (on average).

No one responded to the graph because, as I feared, none of you on the Bernie side of the aisle really understand enough about what you're talking about to have a meaningful debate about it. If you did, well, you probably wouldn't be debating it because you'd know a priori that you are incorrect about what you are saying today.

There's a reason the biggest "economist" supporting Bernie was fucking Robert Reich.

>offshores stockpiling money all over the world
>rich people hoarding money during crisis making it much worse because of "confidence"

people go to the us because your non-tradables are so expensive. That's why you lost manufacturing jobs and you attract migrants to work on the lowest paid non-tradables. If you live like shit in the US being paid in these sectors, you can still send a lot to your family. Don't teach me about economics, when your arguments only show that you took econ 101.

still, most economists just tells us what the rich wants us to hear. you cannot trust them.

Just eliminate wages entirely. You don't actually DESERVE anything

So what, my bro is Nigerian, he's telling me that Nigerians can receive as many salaries as they fill out paperwork for.

what do you think would happen if you set the minimum wage to €2000/mo?

There would be inflation, which would benefit the workers in the end, as prices wouldn't increase as much.

who taught you this shit nigga?

not mises.com for sure

Some people develop later. I was a retard at 16 and had to work for $5 an hour under the table since I wasn't worth 7.25.

Now I'm 24 making near 6 figures.

The value of a good is determined by the market, not the seller.
If no one can afford milk...the price drops until it sells

That is what I expect, but who nose

we could also hire two guys to 1. pay a dude to smash a machine and 2. have the other guy fix it
instant job growth

It would only be beneficial if they actually took immigration seriously. Otherwise it would be a race to the bottom.

>this is what lolbertrians actually believe

>inflation doesn't diminish the value of money, leading both debts and capital accounts to become smaller in constant dollar values

>this doesn't primarily benefit people with more debts than capital

>ie the poor

Alberto may be mixed up, but inflation clearly does tend to benefit the poorer class.

ITT: Sup Forums gets schooled by Portugal.