$9/h minimum wage
- Thread starter daenku32
- Start date
-
- Tags
- minimum wage
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,561
You believe this means that the cost of living hasn't increased as well?
Now we are on the same wave length.
I guess not
I'm a bit confused by this, you would be for streamlining welfare but against having the system encourage working?
It's election time
Well, it's been a while, but I think the issue is still relevant in political discourse. Polling for minimum wage hike, is strongly in favor: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...mall-business-owners-back-a-minimum-wage-hike
But as most regular folks admit, the prices are going up. (even if at low rates, as Fed policy folks would happily tell you, and some others scream at you).
But if in the end we are talking about prices increasing because of this; why would you think someone just above a future minimum wage would find things unaffordable, but have people earning under the hike number find things just as expensive & affordable as they need them to be, just to survive.
In other words, how many people do we still need in the servant class?
Well, it's been a while, but I think the issue is still relevant in political discourse. Polling for minimum wage hike, is strongly in favor: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...mall-business-owners-back-a-minimum-wage-hike
But as most regular folks admit, the prices are going up. (even if at low rates, as Fed policy folks would happily tell you, and some others scream at you).
But if in the end we are talking about prices increasing because of this; why would you think someone just above a future minimum wage would find things unaffordable, but have people earning under the hike number find things just as expensive & affordable as they need them to be, just to survive.
In other words, how many people do we still need in the servant class?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I don't think that I have ever seen this post before. The idea that a negative income tax would require separate measures to encourage work runs counter to the concept of a NIT and suggests a lack of knowledge of what a NIT actually entails.
Just as under capitalism you don't need an army of bureaucrats to deal with the logistics of the production and distribution of bread and milk, under a NIT you don't need an army of bureaucrats to deal with wage or welfare equity. It is self-adjusting.
The idea is that every income earner (whether it be corporate or individual) is taxed at the same rate. This means that there is no point in trying to hide the income in corporations/trusts since wherever the income is, it will be taxed the same way. The revenue from the NIT provides a pool of funds which can be equally divided among all adult citizens.
The self-adjusting feature of NIT comes from the fact that the amount of handout that each person gets depends on the size of the pool raised by NIT (no more structural deficit problems). If people decide that they don't want to work and just live on the handout then the pool will shrink resulting in a smaller handout and forcing more people back into the workforce. A similar effect occurs if businesses try to cut wages (assuming that less wages = more profits). Fewer people would be inclined to seek employment so employers would have to increase their offer.
Since the handout isn't means tested, there is no work dis-incentive for welfare recipients.
Another alternative might be for employers to carry fewer employees in order to make up for the increased wages. For example, say I ran a fast food joint where I employed 4 workers on a shift at $7.00 an hour. Because government has mandated a higher wage, now I'll cut one worker and that shift will be run with three workers at $9.00 an hour.
The remaining workers may have to work harder and put out more but I don't think too many employers will just eat the loss unless the number of staff they have is vital to getting the work done with little or no alternatives.
The remaining workers may have to work harder and put out more but I don't think too many employers will just eat the loss unless the number of staff they have is vital to getting the work done with little or no alternatives.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
If an employer could make do with three staff instead of four, don't you think they would be doing so already?
Not exactly. If an employer could make do with three instead of four, they'll fire all but two and make them spend half their time apologizing to customers for the wait.
Not necessarily. Where I live, entry level workers can be hard to find, so for example the McDonald's near my house pays (I think) $8.25 an hour but they always carry a skeleton crew. Sometimes during lunch rush, they have the drive thru and only one cash register open while the line literally goes out the door.
Nope, just simple reality.
And so - even if they otherwise would - they will not get my money....If fast food isn't a)fast and b) edible+ they won't either.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
That's normal for a Friday evening where I live. Maccas lost my business years ago.
I know that businesses have to make a profit but mickey dees has lost a lot of business where I live because there are other places to get a burger in the shopping complex where I live.