hog88
Your ray of sunshine
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 114,488
- Likes
- 162,486
That’s exactly what he has been advocating sister. It’s impossible to have a one size fits all number across the nation with a wide variance in regional cost of living.That's not an argument for there being no minimum wage. That's just an argument for linking whatever the minimum is to cost of living
1. Those countries you mention are also highly isolated by policy.Look into Australia. Highest minimum wage in the world. Hasn't destroyed their economy. Luxembourg has a high minimum wage as well. Strong economy. Seattle's economy has kept on humming even though they have a high minimum wage.
No no no. You not supposed to actually LOOK at Seattle. C’mon man!1. Those countries you mention are also highly isolated by policy.
2. Seattle's unemployment is higher than the national rate. Seattle has the 8th highest rent average of major cities. $15 an hour makes 31,200 a year. Average rent is 1890 in Seattle. Which means your "livable wage" has to pay near 73% of gross pay to not live in the slums. Of course taxes make that number worse. Seattle is ranked fifth in most expensive US city to live in. Humming along nicely. This is an impressive rating:
View attachment 352269
But it will still create some level of additional inflation. Which makes the gap between the billionaires and the lower class even more extreme. Which will lead to even more demand for left wing economic policies.
Democratic politics is like the episode of it’s always Sunny where Charlie continually puts more and more cats in the wall in an attempt to get the first cat out. They attempt to continually add more and more regulation in order to correct issues created by regulation.
Then what's the controversy in raising it if it's impact is de minimis.
You got a like because you're looking at a bigger picture, but there are businesses so labor heavy that the cost would significantly increase.No. The diffused cost of the minimum wage hike will not offset the concentrated benefits for the people who are literally doubling their wages. For inflation to offset their gains in the next 4 years, it'd have to increase from about 3% per year to about 28% per year. That's not happening. Business owners would move more heavily to skeleton crews and automation, which is what creates the unemployment issue. Even if business owners didn't adjust, wages are only one of many input costs and thus doubling minimum wage wouldn't double prices to consumers.
Wages aren't the only cost of labor so no its not just one line of input. For many industries, you're right. But COL will increase. We have examples already of that difference.No. The diffused cost of the minimum wage hike will not offset the concentrated benefits for the people who are literally doubling their wages. For inflation to offset their gains in the next 4 years, it'd have to increase from about 3% per year to about 28% per year. That's not happening. Business owners would move more heavily to skeleton crews and automation, which is what creates the unemployment issue. Even if business owners didn't adjust, wages are only one of many input costs and thus doubling minimum wage wouldn't double prices to consumers.
You mean..... they will have to depend on the government for insurance? Wow... didn't see that coming.Inflation and the correction for margin will put them back in poverty and likely even worse than before. It would also slide the scale of poverty because there won't be an immediate correction to more skilled jobs being paid more. So emts who are fine now will simply have higher bills and same pay. People who are full time with benefits will now be part time and have to buy their own insurances. Minimum wage hikes hurt the low and middle classes.