- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
A high Minimum wage is a bad policy, we should have a low minimum wage and generous EITC. We want people to find employment and we want them to receive a more money.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:09
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 03:21
|
|
- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
Why do you want the government to subsidize low-wage jobs?
Because I want people who are unemployed to find work and I want those people to get a decent amount of income as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:43
|
|
- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
Higher Min wage seems like a pretty good incentive. Inflation comes later if a bunch of bankers piss the bed when the poor's knock down their lawn ornaments.
A higher minimum wage means less people will be employed. Inflation and the minimum wage really have no link, there isn't enough money added to the pot to matter there.
What I am suggesting is that Businesses can pay people less, the government picks up the difference and then some so those people take home more money. The government then sets up the incentives so that as those people climb out of minimum wage jobs the subsidies make that profitable for them before leveling out then decreasing.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:54
|
|
- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
Economists and empiricism say no, but my gut says absolutely, it does.
I am pretty a majority of Economists would say a higher minimum wage leads to less jobs.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:59
|
|
- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
If you're pretty sure maybe you could post some proof, or a survey, or some data.
I'm pretty sure a majority of industrial workers long for full communism.
quote:Surveys of economists[edit]
According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90% of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[133] By 1992 the survey found 79% of economists in agreement with that statement,[134] and by 2000, 45.6% were in full agreement with the statement and 27.9% agreed with provisos (73.5% total).[135][136] The authors of the 2000 study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.[137]
A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association (AEA). Whaples found that 46.8% respondents wanted the minimum wage eliminated, 37.7% supported an increase, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, and 1.3% wanted it decreased.[138] Another survey in 2007 conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center found that 73% of labor economists surveyed in the United States believed 150% of the then-current minimum wage would result in employment losses and 68% believed a mandated minimum wage would cause an increase in hiring of workers with greater skills. 31% felt that no hiring changes would result.[139]
Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents were nearly evenly divided when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution.[140] Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, "the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members."[141]
In 2007, Klein and Dompe conducted a non-anonymous survey of supporters of the minimum wage who had signed the "Raise the Minimum Wage" statement published by the Economic Policy Institute. 95 of the 605 signatories responded. They found that a majority signed on the grounds that it transferred income from employers to workers, or equalized bargaining power between them in the labor market. In addition, a majority considered disemployment to be a moderate potential drawback to the increase they supported.[141]
In 2013, a diverse group of economics experts was surveyed on their view of the minimum wage's impact on employment. 34% of respondents agreed with the statement, "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment." 32% disagreed and the remaining respondents were uncertain or had no opinion on the question. 49% agreed with the statement, "The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy", while 11% disagree.
Here is your wikipedia poo poo dump.
But it is pretty much common sense if you increase the cost to business there will be some marginal jobs that are no longer worth it. Sure helping out the other workers earn more might make up for it and not too many people will be impacted, but ALL THAT IS UNNECESSARY. If you just lower the minimum wage add those marginal jobs back in then add some more marginal jobs. Then have the government give money too all those workers so they make more then they would have made with a modest increase in the minimum wage.
then you tax the rich some to pay for all this
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 02:06
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 03:21
|
|
- Foma
- Oct 1, 2004
-
Hello, My name is Lip Synch. Right now, I'm making a post that is anti-bush or something Micheal Moore would be proud of because I and the rest of my team lefty friends (koba1t included) need something to circle jerk to.
|
If you qualify for food stamps while working 40 hours a week, then you're not being paid enough and the government is subsidizing whatever lovely company you're working for.
Don't think of it as subsidizing a company, think of it as a government job, that is economically beneficial, cheaper for the government to run, and with less overhead costs.
I mean you could have them digging holes, then filling them in, but this way more people get hamburgers or tiny american flags.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 02:32
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:09
