http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6737786?
Here is a short article saying that by raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the rich, the Gov. of Minnesota has improved Minnesota’s economy.
A family member posted this on facebook and for some reason I want to comment on it, but, I’m slow in intellectual matters.
What would you say if you Had To respond to this article?
So, currently (Aug. 1, 2016) Minnesota’s minimum wage is $7.75/hour. This means anyone who is not worth $7.75/hour is, by law, unemployable legally in the state of Minnesota. The plan is to raise the unemployment bar to $9.50/hour in 2018 for employers grossing $500,000 or more? So the state of Minnesota is mandating roughly a 20% increase in productivity for new hires for employers in this profit grossing bracket?
This may get you into the fray initially, but it won’t get you out of the woods with regards to the responses it would be likely to generate.
8 hours ago, dadmonson said:
What would you say if you Had To respond to this article?
"Great job governor! My neighbor is probably just below the $150,000 number and he bought a brand new car when his previous one was just 3 years old. Clearly, people earning $90,000 can afford to pay more taxes too. I earn less than that and would like a share of his salary.
Where’s he going to go… he has family in the state. He may even work a bit harder to make up the difference. Win win… for me the moocher and him the earner!"
13 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
So, currently (Aug. 1, 2016) Minnesota’s minimum wage is $7.75/hour. This means anyone who is not worth $7.75/hour is, by law, unemployable legally in the state of Minnesota. The plan is to raise the unemployment bar to $9.50/hour in 2018 for employers grossing $500,000 or more? So the state of Minnesota is mandating roughly a 20% increase in productivity for new hires for employers in this profit grossing bracket?
This may get you into the fray initially, but it won’t get you out of the woods with regards to the responses it would be likely to generate.
If the price of bread were raised from $2.00 to $20.00, would that stop you from buying bread?
If I were unemployable due to not being worth the decreed minimum wage, that would be not be possible.
What would you say if you Had to respond to the OP article?
17 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
If the price of bread were raised from $2.00 to $20.00, would that stop you from buying bread?
There are people all over the world who go hungry because they cannot afford food. Some folk (like the authors of the “Two Dollars a Day” book) claim that many do this in the U.S. Even if one does not believe the poor picture they paint, I think it is likely that there are people in the U.S. who skip a meal here and there to spend the money elsewhere.
Just now, dream_weaver said:
If I were unemployable due to not being worth the decreed minimum wage, that would be not be possible.
So if the minimum wage was $1 trillion an hour, nobody would be hirable, right? So everyone would just sit on their hands and do nothing while they starve? Somehow I doubt that.
Quote
What would you say if you Had to respond to the OP article?
Probably as you did, but then I still wouldn’t have a ready answer for the questions that I just asked you.
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:
So if the minimum wage was $1 trillion an hour, nobody would be hirable, right? So everyone would just sit on their hands and do nothing while they starve? Somehow I doubt that.
If the minimum wage were 1¢ a year based on 40 hours of work per week, the question reduces to asking: is a proper purpose of government to regulate wages?
Just now, dream_weaver said:
If the minimum wage were 1¢ a year based on 40 hours of work per week, the question reduces to asking: is a proper purpose of government is to regulate wages?
Who cares? You are dodging the question.
2 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
If the price of bread were raised from $2.00 to $20.00, would that stop you from buying bread?
Yes. In fact, it would cause me to quit my job and become a baker.
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:
If the minimum wage were 1¢ a year based on 40 hours of work per week, the question reduces to asking: is a proper purpose of government is to regulate wages?
Sounds like SK is just asking for a stronger argument. It’s not like people really stop working, or that people don’t mind at least on a small business level to pay less than minimum wage. Either hire them as contractors, or pay cash. It seems that minimum wage is only a big threat to major corporations. If you only care about legality, fine, but legality doesn’t tell us if or how the laws affect an economy, or if minimum wage makes wages more sensible. The bigger question is, how enforcement works. I don’t know enough about wages to say how well people obey them or if they really do mandate a productivity increase in practice.
For big companies, it seems to matter to them more.
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:
It seems that minimum wage is only a big threat to major corporations. If you only care about legality, fine, but legality doesn’t tell us if or how the laws affect an economy, or if minimum wage makes wages more sensible. The bigger question is, how enforcement works. I don’t know enough about wages to say how well people obey them or if they really do mandate a productivity increase in practice.
For big companies, it seems to matter to them more.
Actually, big companies would benefit from an increase in minimum wage. Big companies are more able to absorb the cost, while small businesses will suffer from the increased overhead costs. Big companies would install automation to offset labor costs, (and lay-off workers), while small businesses would struggle. The small business might hire the laid-off workers, but when they compete with a company that increases its output with fewer wages on the payroll, eventually the small business folds.