The Democrats do something...intelligent?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

While I can see your point, I disagree with it. The employer should have the burden since they are the ones that require the help.

What? The employees require the help. The obligation to help these people is society's, not their employers'. Society should foot the bill, not require the employers - who are already doing a lot just by giving these people jobs - to pay up.

They should pay a fair wage. 5.15 in today's market is not a fair wage.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Imran: I like that idea. It gives those at the bottom more money to spend on the goods and it allows the small businesses to keep their workers, and maybe even save businesses on the edge from toppelling into the red.

It's exactly the same, economically, as just increasing aid to the poor. Except it has more red tape, and increases the complexity of the tax code yet again.

The marginal damage to the economy of every extra provision in the tax code is pretty large.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
They should pay a fair wage. 5.15 in today's market is not a fair wage.

And in most places they don't pay it. Hell, a few years ago as a bagger at the supermarket I made more than minimum wage.

$5.15/hr is completely fair if the market will bear it and it's the actual value of the work being done (those two are pretty much the same thing).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
The 1997 raise did nothing to hurt job growth. Why would a new raise do anything more negative than the '97 raise?

The 1997 raise was in the middle of an amazing boom period, where many people even in fast food were making $7/hr. The interesting thing to see the effect it had when the economy went back down again in 2000/01.

[Kuciwalker]

Some people don't produce as much value as they consume. That's just a fact of life. It's in our best interest to at least let them produce as much value as possible. Raising the minimum wage does no one any favors.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Imran: I like that idea. It gives those at the bottom more money to spend on the goods and it allows the small businesses to keep their workers, and maybe even save businesses on the edge from toppelling into the red.

That is the main problem with raising the min wage. Small businesses, who there are many of, may not be able to afford the increase, even after letting a few workers go. A tax break to them in conjunction with the wage increase may help everyone (or at least not hurt as bad when the bust period comes).

Though the other problem is the sudden increases. A min wage indexed to inflation may make for smoother transitions, but you'd probably have to take into account the inflation in every state, or even every county, because I'm sure some counties in Mississippi may be experiencing less inflation than New York City (it doesn't only depend on money supply after all).

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Kuci:

But if we put it into the hands of the government to support these people, rather than the businesses, then we'll all have to pay more because we'll have to support more people with more money as the economy increases but the minimum doesn't.

Meanwhile, all that extra money that is spent by the consumers won't trickle down, they'll go to the same few at the top who don't have to pay their workers any more than they used to, while making more money off their work.

What's the limit that the government should give in welfare? And why not just get rid of a wage altogether and have the government pay for everything?

[Datajack Franit]

The point is that the low-income economy is in deep recession all over the world, because of China and India producing everything for less.

We have some huge problems here, in a country that lives on textile industry, heavily threatened by those countries' cheap labour. Is the answer raising wages? NO. Hell, Berlusconi lost because most of the country cannot reach the end of the month, but not even the new Prime Minister dared to raise those wages. Increasing the costs for producing goods is the craziest idea you can have under such conditions.

What to do then? If you cannot pay them more, give them more services, like better schools and cheaper hospitals, medicines and elderly healthcare.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The 1997 raise was in the middle of an amazing boom period, where many people even in fast food were making $7/hr. The interesting thing to see the effect it had when the economy went back down again in 2000/01.

The minimum wage today, while higher in absolute numbers, is lower than it was in the 60's when you compared it to average wages and average incomes, and it has failed to keep pace with inflation and the cost of living.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Some people don't produce as much value as they consume. That's just a fact of life. It's in our best interest to at least let them produce as much value as possible. Raising the minimum wage does no one any favors.

The employ them publicly if you so care.

[Kuciwalker]

Why? Would that be more efficient or effective?

[Odin]

in 1968 the minimum wage was over $8 in today's dollars. The Neo-Liberal morons rant on how government intervention is bad for the economy yet government intervention in the economy is responsible for the boom of the 50's and 60's.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Kuci:

But if we put it into the hands of the government to support these people, rather than the businesses, then we'll all have to pay more because we'll have to support more people with more money as the economy increases but the minimum doesn't.

They have to be supported anyway. No matter what, unless we let them starve, they're going to consumer a certain amount of resources that we decide is the minimum. Making those businesses support them means that less of them will have jobs at all - which is incredibly wasteful because then they produce nothing - and get on the taxpayer dollar anyway.

Meanwhile, all that extra money that is spent by the consumers won't trickle down, they'll go to the same few at the top who don't have to pay their workers any more than they used to, while making more money off their work.

The only reason they wouldn't have to spend more money is if the value produced by the workers was still less than minimum wage. If it is, I don't see a problem with letting the other people (e.g. managers, executives, owners) who do produce a lot of value get that value they produced.

What's the limit that the government should give in welfare? And why not just get rid of a wage altogether and have the government pay for everything?

Because once you get into people that are actually net contributors to the economy, there's no reason to support them with government funds. They can support themselves. Wages exist because the market isn't as efficient when prices are artificially distorted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The minimum wage today, while higher in absolute numbers, is lower than it was in the 60's when you compared it to average wages and average incomes, and it has failed to keep pace with inflation and the cost of living.

This is a Good Thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why? Would that be more efficient or effective?

Well, from your point of view, given you espouse the notion that there are individuals who are net sinks of value, wouldn't it?