Folks in my city are starting a coalition pushing for a $3 increase in minimum wage in two years. Good or bad?

Everything becomes more expensive, or companies hire fewer people. They aren't suddenly going to start making more money, so they're going to have to start either charging more for their goods/services, or hire fewer people. What usually happens is that companies hire fewer employees, the unemployment rate rises, and the people who voted for the increase get to feel good about themselves.

American Samoa.

Look at that case where the parents in Washington settled the unfairness because they were not paying the federal minimum wage.

That is a stupid idea let me know how it works out for them,The waiters and waitresses in the city of Santa Moonica tried to do this and all the restaurants got together and took it to the media... Bad idea who do you think is going to pay those increased wages????

Minimum wage should never ever be increased.

Even if GDP doubles.

The result will be poetic justice since most of them will end up unemployable with no entry point into the workforce since entry-level jobs will all but disappear or get 6000 applicants per opening.

It's a union scam, their wages are tied to the minimum wage.

This is the unions' way of giving themselves a raise, without looking like they are so doing.

not wrote:

Minimum wage should never ever be increased.

Even if GDP doubles.

This. No matter the state of the economy, the minimum wage should never be increased. The poor must stay poor and the rich must get richer.

well, let's start here... it's called "pricing people out of the market". Did you know that in the 1940's-1950's, teen unemployment was lower than it is today? Did you know that in that same time period that BLACK TEEN unemployment was lower than it is today?

Ask any employer that has been around for while... they will tell you what pricing people out of the market means. Employers want employees... it is a sign of growth.

If raising the minimum wage is the solution, then why not raise it to $20? Why not $50?

I hope so bad that you are joking. Like a minimum wage hike will decrease the poverty rate.

habajibijabadaba wrote:

not wrote:

Minimum wage should never ever be increased.

Even if GDP doubles.

This. No matter the state of the economy, the minimum wage should never be increased. The poor must stay poor and the rich must get richer.

ummm... wrote:

well, let's start here... it's called "pricing people out of the market". Did you know that in the 1940's-1950's, teen unemployment was lower than it is today? Did you know that in that same time period that BLACK TEEN unemployment was lower than it is today?

Ask any employer that has been around for while... they will tell you what pricing people out of the market means. Employers want employees... it is a sign of growth.

If raising the minimum wage is the solution, then why not raise it to $20? Why not $50?

Did you know that in the 50s the United States had the most equitable period between the people making the most money and the people making the least money?

What has happened over the last 40-50 years is that the big corporations have put most of the small independents out of business. The people owning those businesses have no choice but to go work for the large companies at 1/2 of what they were making before. The big companies then have a monopoly in that area and by being much busier, can get by on a lower labor percentage. Young and unskilled labor is the one that gets left out and even those that are employed are paid lower levels than they should be because the gov't (who took over the benefit of unions) is slow to regulate because of the bribes (Lobbying) they get from the companies.

The inequity between the haves and have nots is growing at a rapid pace, That is fact. You can decide whether over the next 40 years it will be good for the country. I don't believe it will.

You are also very ignorant if you believe it will lower employment. Companies have to have employees to make money. What normally happens is that the lower incomes have the benefit of the extra wages and the local economies greatly benefit as that money is spent immediately. Eventually prices will rise some and the spending power will return to what it was unless another raise is mandated. At least in the short term, it takes money away from the rich that would be used to force even more small businesses under and puts it in the local economies.

not an eco

Did you know that in the 50s the United States had the most equitable period between the people making the most money and the people making the least money?

Did you know that income equality is an ignoble goal to strive for, motivated solely by envy?

You are entirely missing the point. Yes, "income inequality" is higher than it has been before. You are also corret about this:

"What has happened over the last 40-50 years is that the big corporations have put most of the small independents out of business. The people owning those businesses have no choice but to go work for the large companies at 1/2 of what they were making before."

But the big idea you're missing is that even though those former small business owners now make less money, their quality of life and standard of living is much higher than it is before. Think back to the 1950s and 1960s. Were there big screen TVs? flat screen tvs? Smartphones (or any cell phone)? the internet? Macbooks? Did Apple, Microsoft, or IBM exist? No, none of that existed. The world was completely different. And all of those things (which we all use in our everyday lives) make our quality of life and standard of living greater. And they were all developed and conceived by corporations. The power of corporations has been fantastic for America, and has made us the world leader in anything related to technology or scientific advancements.

In 2013 America, being poor means only having 1 big screen tv in your house instead of 2 or 3. It means only having 1GB of data on your iphone plan instead of 5.

So has the wage gap grown in the last 50 years? Yeah, it sure has. No doubt. But guess what? The people on the bottom have benefited enormously from it as well...not as much as the people on the top (but they are the producers, so obviously they deserve more), but the poor class in America is wayyy above the poor class of the 50s and 60s.

Corporations also give many people jobs, and provide cheap products to consumers. Most of the poorer people I know, guess where they shop? Walmart. Why? Cheaper prices. They can't afford to shop at a mom and pop store that charges twice as much for the exact same product. Corporations are part of what have made America great and a true financial power over the last several decades. We can only hope for more.

I should add...basically, having "income equality" is a means to an end. But we can get the end (higher standard of living) without this means, which is why it is pointless to say that income equality is bad.

Look at the overall standard of living in the country. It has greatly risen over the last 50 years. Don't complain.

It will become like very prosperous Norway, where the minimum wage is so high that doctors only make about 4 times as much as gas station attendants. And they don't even complain, they like it. Everything is expensive and still they like it, because they're all so rich it doesn't matter.

The usual LR response is that America can't do that because it's a racist country, and it's nonsense. America could easily go the Nordic way, but its rich people are so obscenely hedonistic they'd resort to nuclear weapons to prevent it. They already destroy entire countries to fill their gas tanks.

anapaix wrote:

But the big idea you're missing is that even though those former small business owners now make less money, their quality of life and standard of living is much higher than it is before.

And the quality of living in the 50s was MUCH greater than in 1910.

I think YOU are missing the point.

Which is better

Your wife saying "honey turn off the radio and get the doorbell our friends are here"

or

Elwood Edwards saying "you've got mail"?

Bad Wigins wrote:

It will become like very prosperous Norway, where the minimum wage is so high that doctors only make about 4 times as much as gas station attendants. And they don't even complain, they like it. Everything is expensive and still they like it, because they're all so rich it doesn't matter.

The usual LR response is that America can't do that because it's a racist country, and it's nonsense. America could easily go the Nordic way, but its rich people are so obscenely hedonistic they'd resort to nuclear weapons to prevent it. They already destroy entire countries to fill their gas tanks.

You're basically describing a situation where everyone is brainwashed. "Everything is expensive and they still like it."

That's one thing I love about the US (as compared to Western Europe, where I've travelled a lot)...in most places, the cost of living is cheap. Why pay unnecessarily high prices for things? If you are willing to pay 5$ for a 20oz coca cola and then feel better about yourself afterward because you think you are a part of some higher form of society, you're brainwashed, period.

And why shouldn't doctors and gas station attendants make the same amount of money? If you really don't understand even the most basic of concepts like this, well I would probably guess that you did not go to a private school.

32423 wrote:

What are some of the positives and negatives of such a move?

People are engaging in the political process in order to shape their community in the way that they see fit, why would this ever be a bad thing?

anapaix wrote:

And why shouldn't doctors and gas station attendants make the same amount of money? .

Nobody is saying they should idiot. One cause of inequality is the large companies paying execs millions and millions of dollars per year at the expense of not only their workers, but those individuals that have lost jobs because of the unfair advantage the large corporations have gained over the years.

The mainstream workers have also been fleeced by the push to invest in 401ks for their retirement giving brokers the ability to skim hundreds of millions of dollars off the top for their own pleasure. The gov't caused this by allowing companies to underfund pensions (skimming millions of dollars out of those accounts) causing them to go bankrupt and screwing those pensioners out of their hard earned income for retirement.

There are many other examples of the gov't and big business colluding to continue widening the gap between those who have power and those who don't.

Unless you are one of those execs screwing over the rest of us, you are getting screwed over and are too stupid to realize it.