DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Biden calls to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour

I'm familiar with the video of Congresswoman Porter and Jamie Dimon from the time it came out. To me at least it's clear there's an agenda behind that line of questioning and visualized math. I also don't see how one could make a difficult decision concerning budgeting/living conditions without giving it some more in depth thinking. If there was an easy, clear answer, the conversation doesn't take place.

Why is Congresswoman Porter placing the onus of providing what she deems to be a minimally acceptable standard of living for her constituents on a private employer? $35k/year is a living in many, many parts of the country where a studio apartment is not $1,600/month. Not a great one, but a living nevertheless.

I'm not attempting to completely dismiss the role private companies should have in taking care of their employees, I am just of the opinion that the outrage this clip was originally designed to stir up is misplaced.

I think it is a vast over-simplification to say "well, if poorer Americans get more money then costs will go up and so this will all cancel out."

It is true that costs will increase somewhat -- but not true that it will be to the same degree as incomes increase.

You have to evaluate the elasticity curves for supply and demand.

I don't think it's misplaced at all. She was using the average costs in her area. Often times I see politicians as trying to over complicate an issue. Trying to muddy the waters with things that are pretty much black and white. She put it black and white. She made it very simple to understand. While she was firm in her presentation, I certainly wouldn't see it as "outrage". And for something that was oversimplified, it left a financial expert speechless.

It seems as though your feelings on the matter is the figures that Porter came up with are "her standards" although that's certainly not true. She provided the average cost in her area. At some point you have to provide some standard to use. I don't believe that standard is unreasonable. Sure we could lower that standard and create a situation where those who work for a living are forced to live in crime ridden, highly drug infested neighborhoods to only and eat beans and rice all of the time. If you're working hard to try and better yourself while being forced to live in a neighborhood where your neighbors lay around all day and do nothing, can you explain to me how that provides any incentive to work? Surely you can see that we have to create a situation where working helps to make you better off than people who don't work.

Now where we certainly agree is that what the minimum wage is in San Fransisco shouldn't be the same as it is in the rust belt. The cost of living varies greatly depending on your location. I think a firm formula should be mandated as how each state determines what their minimum wage should be. Done in a way that no matter which party controls each state, the minimum wage and how it is determined for that state can not be manipulated to deflate or inflate what their minimum wage should be.

Now let's talk about private employers. There is certainly a choice in what you feel a private employer should or should not be held to. But let's break it down to what is one of two obvious choices here. You nor I make a dime of profit on a worker who is hired by someone else. The business they work for are the people who receive the benefit of profit based on their employees.

As of this moment what we are doing is making a clear cut choice the way I see it. Allow businesses to continue to profit while tax payers subsidize their employees or make them step up and pay them more. The current situation creates a sub culture of poverty among working people. So much so that tax payers are forced to pay for their own employees healthcare, subsidize their food cost, their child care and their housing.

So either employers are forced to step up and pay their employees more, or tax payers pay huge amounts in benefits to their employees. So it's not really about them being able to live, it's more about who is paying their bills. And no, a much higher minimum wage will not erase all of the benefits they qualify for but what it will do is greatly decrease them.

So we have the choice of a continuing the bail out of the business community by picking up the responsibility for a lot of the financial burden of their employees, or we create a situation where the businesses who make a living off of their employees start accepting their responsibility of paying more of the tab.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of watching the tax payers take the brunt of such a broken minimum wage structure. We can either continue what I see as a welfare system set up to pay for their employees, or we can make them accountable for more of that bill.

You also have to account for the fact that the raw materials used in business will not be impacted. Only the labor to process, manufacture and deliver those raw materials will increase. Many seem to try and ignore that.

doesn't the Raw material have to be processed, manufactured and delivered! If they increase wages to 15 from 7 then if I'm making 23 then my wages go down by 8 dollars. It's simple economics! We are getting ready to sign a 4 year contract so we will be locked in for 4 years in a economy that will sky rocket in inflation. It took me 20+ years to get to where I am doing a job that can't be done by someone by hiring them tomorrow. Mcdonald's is flipping hamburgers, I'm sorry if I don't think a burger flipper should make 15 dollars an hour overnight. They are jobs for high school kids and not meant to be careers. Walmart and other places already increased their wages

Some of it just is the cost of the material....

Not all costs are labor costs.



I'd go back and brush up on "simple economics"

I already covered the fact that processing, production and delivering those products will increase in the very same post you quoted.

As has it has been in the past, an increase in the minimum wage will impact an increase in salaries across the board. It always has.

I'm not going to make excuses why Americans who work 40 hours a week should live in poverty. If you wish to point fingers, point them at the system that created this situation. Not at working Americans.

I agree with that and why I said it can work for a while. Over time, it is still going to be minimum wage and the benefit will erode.

First, I asked the question about the future President saying working 40 hours. What about those working part time?

I see it creating a inflation spike. As I said earlier, what now happens to those making say $17 per hour and have been on the job for a good while? They are currently making about double the minimum. Very quickly they are going to want substantial raises, as they probably should.

That leave the business the option to close their doors, or pay the wages and pass the increase in expense on to their customers.

Well, there is another option, seek methods to decrease labor costs and seek automated systems.

I say screw minimum wage. We need to spend our time so people aren't stuck in minimum wage jobs.

That starts with education, but it also includes our government rolling up their sleeves to attract and develop job sources that pay solid money.

Throwing fairy dust around and proclaiming the new minimum wage is $15 is a joke. The only thing it does is produce votes from those who aren't making that much money.

What too many don't realize is there IS a cost to businesses with an increase in min. wage, combined with most states already have a higher min. wage, combined with hardly anyone makes min. wage other than in the first few months, combined with min. wage was never supposed to be a livable wage, combined with ain't nobody working 40 hours a week at min. wage unless they have absolutely no skills or ability at all.

It's really that simple. If you want to jack up the min. wage, fine. Watch companies find ways around it - like technology. Better production, fewer employees.

A company was being threatened with going union - employees would make $1 more per hour. The owner asked them what they would pay in union dues.

The owner then said "You are all free to go get a better job if you can. I don't own you. I will be going on vacation, leaving Friday after I chain the doors shut. We're closed down friday at 3. you can call me to let me know what your decision is."

Took the employees til Tuesday to call saying "hey we want to work.

Those employees loved the owner and his fairness with them. The business remained a "we'll be fair with you, you be fair with us" business.

The sad part in all of this is it looks like the Dems want minimum wage to be a livable wage.

Sounds live Soviet Russia to me.

Yes - at least for somebody who is working full time.



Or like, most of the rest of the developed world?

I've said it before - asked it - and I'll ask again: who is making fed, or even state min. wage, that works 40 hours a week?

I know of NO ONE making fed. min working 40 hours a week. Without benefits like vacation (maybe after a year), health insurance, paid days off for sick leave, etc.

So ........these people that are working 40 hours a week at $7.25 per hour......who are they, and where are they?

Hell, McDonalds here in n.w. Ohio is starting people off at $10. MCDONALDS. Part time. And I guarantee it doesn't take long for that wage to increase.





But, ya'll keep believing there are people out there working 40 hours a week for $7.25 an hour.

I don't have a problem with people making $600 per week. I just think that is a bit much to pay the biscuit maker at Hardees.

Like I said, it should work for a while.

Hi Arch, welcome to 2021, when you can just google this stuff...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 742,000 Americans worked full time at or below minimum wage, compared to 965,000 part time workers...

So it is about 40%/60%.


https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2018/pdf/home.pdf

Neat. That tells me nothing. How do people make LESS than min. wage?

Read this, from your article:

So, of 81.9 million hourly workers, age 16 or older, 434,000 made minimum wage. Thanks. That's, of hourly workers, .006% made minimum wage?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think your link proves my point. Plus, you must not have read your link, or at least all the info in it.

People that work for tips like restaurant workers get paid less than minimum wage.I have no idea what percentage they are.

Oh, I know that, but I'm sure they were included in the numbers that the article reported.

Restaurant workers - other tip based employees. They are usually paid fractions of minimum wage -- so when minimum wage goes up, they also (typically benefit).



0.6%, not 0.006%.




Was your point that 746,000 = "NOBDOY", because that is a bad point. e.g.,

It is - it is the next column over.

I will say two things.

Minimum wage should be tied to the inflation index to take the political gaming out of it.

The minimum wage should be different for different states. California is not the same as West Virginia.

Yes and no. People who work for tips are paid like $2.15 per hour by the employer. Tips are expected to make up the rest. If they don't, the employer has to make up the difference.

Employers don't do that for long. They see that as the employee not doing a very good job if they aren't getting tipped. If the other servers are getting tipped enough to make the difference, then the one who isn't is either a crappy employee or they just aren't claiming as required my the IRS.

There are limits to what an employer requires tipped employees to do when it is slow. You don't see them washing windows and mopping the restaurant floors. You see a few of them sitting or leaning on a table, maybe wrapping silver settings while waiting for customers to be seated in their assigned section. Maybe see that the condiment containers are wiped down and the sweet and low containers are full.

That's fair -- though it seems weird to break down even by state, in that case -- California has a larger rural population than West Virginia.

I've never said that $15 is exactly the right value. In 1968, minimum wage was $1.60, which would be $11.90 today. I think that is a good starting point to even talk about minimum wage increases.

Rural or not, I think the cost of living in California is higher over West Virginia.

I am not saying it is all, but wages factor in to inflation.

That $11.90 figure highlights Arch's point that most people are starting around that point anyway. Various states have already instituted minimums above the Federal minimum. Supply and demand should dictate wages, not some edict from the federal government. States should dictate that. I seriously doubt some state would make minimum wage $4 per hour.

Again, I don't have a problem with people making money. I want people to make money. I want business to make money. I just think minimum wage is a political ploy to stir up the troops so to speak.

If $15 is the magic number that puts money in peoples pockets, allows business plans to work without seeing prices rise in a fairly significant way, count me in....I just don't think it will work.

I took my first job in 1961. Minimum was $1.15 per hour if I recall correctly. Maybe it was $1.25, I don't remember.

People working for minimum wage were goofs like me, school aged kids, and women working to supplement what her husband made. Nobody tried to raise a family on minimum wage then. If you were, you were probably a single guy, living in some crap apartment with a old mattress tossed on the floor with a dinky black and white tv that barely worked.

No doubt things have changed, but the standard has to remain that minimum wage isn't intended to be a living wage. At least it shouldn't. It's a starting point, not something intended to sustain for very long.

If it does, federal housing should mostly be eliminated. So should SNAP and various other programs. If you are above poverty levels, people shouldn't get much help, right? Go out, put in your 37 hours and things should be fine.

With all due respect, I think your comment is a pretty vast oversimplification of what I had written (in a good faith attempt at having a conversation about this).

I had two separate thoughts that I was trying to tie together to make my argument that a minimum wage increase will not succeed in redistributing income from the upper to the lower classes.

Upper class households are not nearly as sensitive to increases in the cost of necessities since their margin for error (disposable income) is higher. They'll remain unaffected.

You had pointed out in another post that people were ignoring the fact that business owners will raise the price of their goods and services. I agree with this sentiment. They will not willingly take the hit of lower profit margins as long as demand for their product is there. They'll remain unaffected.

I think a wage increase is needed, I just don't see it redistributing anything from a socioeconomic perspective.

Not all. Many states still only require the federal mandate from employers and they’ve been taking advantage of their workforce by paying slave wages. Not all of these states are rural either. Price of groceries alone has nearly doubled since the pandemic started. The cost of housing has increased dramatically. Employers can handle a measly $15 hr for their workforce nationwide. If not they can do their slave work themselves.

It sounds like some of our population could care less about many of their fellow Americans because they promote having a sub culture of workers they feel should serve them while living in poverty. And yet again they try and put a negative label on it to try and hide their selfishness to me.

You keep asking how many working people make minimum age. Is that what you garner from this? Let me ask you some relevant question. How many people make less than $10 an hour that would be getting a big pay raise if the minimum was was increased to $12 to $14 dollars an hour? I know, that's a question you can't answer. Maybe to you $80 to $150 dollars a week seems like nothing. Not so much for someone living well below the poverty line.

True, it’s not redistributing income at all. It’s a mandate to require greedy employers from paying slave wages to their employees. It also boosts the federal reserve. A win win that only the greedy or trump supporters are against.

My comment around "her" standard of living was meant to encompass that it is "her" area but that wasn't clear, so that's on me.

Congresswoman Porter is publicly questioning a bank executive and a one-percenter about what a struggling single mother should do. He gave the right answer - he'd have to think about it. To try to oversimplify the employee's situation by giving a quick, somewhat thoughtless answer shows a lack of attempt at empathy, is demeaning to the employee, and it obviously creates a PR nightmare for the company. What is unknown is how long this budget situation would last - is this ongoing or a short term situation (ex. is she about to graduate college and advance at the company)? The answer will change depending on the situation.

Solutions that are possible (though impossible to tell without more information):

1. New job
2. Relocation
3. Take on a roommate (potentially in a larger apartment for privacy - the rent may be higher but since it is being split the employee may pay less overall)

For the reasons I had outlined, Jamie Dimon could not suggest any of these as possibilities. Then again, it was never meant to be a conversation to begin with in my opinion.

Given the simple scenario Congresswoman Porter outlined, I could make it work by taking on a roommate and splitting the rent. Is it the standard I want for myself? No. But it's doable. This is why I don't think it's on the employer in this situation. They are paying a fair wage for a job in my book. It's more than double minimum wage in this example. I could live in California on my current Ohio wage, but my standard of living would drop way down. I'm not blaming my employer for that. It seems to boil down to a difference in where the accountability should lie.

Congresswoman Porter, what do you propose your constituent do? What kinds of assistance can you offer to her? Is there a way you can reduce the cost to live in your area? What attempts have you made at increasing wages in your area? Why are you focused solely on pointing fingers at the employer?

I don't see anyone as being stumped in the video. I see it as the only PR move he had.


I do think we have some overlap on private companies; I certainly don't want to effectively subsidize most of them. And for many of them the tax they pay needs to go up. But as I see it a lot of the issue comes down to competition. Speaking from personal experience, my company is already working hard to either automate or offshore nearly all of my department. They can get a similar result for less money and they don't have to pay healthcare. It makes sense that they would do this. Under the assumption that if minimum wage is increased that it would ripple upwards to a degree, the incentive to expedite or expand offshore/automation increases even more. Now as I said my company is doing this regardless of a potential change in wages, so I'm not using this as a criticism of wage increase, just trying to be objective about some of the consequences.

Is there a way to take away or change the incentives that companies have from offshoring/automating more jobs than what is considered a natural evolution?

So living with a small child, you think taking a roommate in a one bedroom apartment is a practical solution? Or relocating away from your family and friends because business is permitted to pay a wage you can't live on?

What you seem to purposefully avoid are basic facts. Porter gave actual facts on the average costs to live in their area. Facts the man could not make excuses for. Facts the man had no answer for because they are true and unavoidable statistics.

Working at a bank is a job most reasonable people would believe pays enough to keep you from living below the poverty line. The tired old excuse of, "Well they're just flipping burgers" does not apply here.

What it actually does is provide evidence that a multi billion dollar businesses are permitted in our nation to take what used to be a good paying job and undermine that job. To make it worth even less than it was before. To create a situation where as time goes by, more and more jobs stop providing a decent living for our citizens.

You do realize that a PR move is something used to make yourself look better than you are, right? To hide or to put off addressing facts you are trying to avoid confronting? If that's what you're suggesting we agree.

But I don't see how that changes the fact that a very wealthy bank is paying it's employees a wage that with one child they can't make ends meet. Are you a banker?

First, I did not suggest she split a one bed apartment. See below.






Do we know that is the case? Her family might live in New Jersey and she moved out to California in pursuit of something that isn't working out. It might have been for a reason that many people consider risky and inadvisable. Or perhaps it was for what people would consider a great reason and something happened that is out of her control. We don't have enough information to make that determination which is why I titled it as:




And why Mr Dimon likely said: "I don't know, I'd have to think about it." He didn't rush to make a decision based on assumptions. He didn't give a thoughtless answer that shows a lack of attempt at empathy and one that is demeaning to the employee.



Which facts have I avoided? Her budget doesn't work. I've acknowledged that. I've also publicly considered more about what her situation might be and provided some general solutions that may or may not fit based on the information I do have.

Let's consider another fact. Her child is 6 years old. Has she been running a $600/month shortfall for the last 72 months? Ha she been with this company the entire time? Why did she take the job if it wasn't enough for her? Assuming it was the best offer she had, does that say more about the State of California than it does this company?

There are people who can make that job work and are eager for the chance. There could be a lot of them in fact, trying to get their foot in the door at a major company so they can grow into the career they aspire for. We don't know what the position is. We don't know the entire situation. Is it the company's fault that it's not working for this particular employee?

Companies exploit workers. That's a fact. I go through it myself and I hate it. I just don't think it's the right move to condemn this particular situation given what we have to work off of.



Not every job at a bank/major company is desirable or pays well. And as someone who works for a major company, I've seen plenty of "burger flipping" jobs as you put it - mindless roles that take minimal skill and no expertise.




I don't disagree that this is happening, but I do disagree its because of minimum wage here. This situation has the employee making more than double minimum wage. A quick internet search likely shows that the company offers healthcare (mandated by ACA, yes) and a retirement plan too.

I believe the problem is caused by:



We're competing with people overseas who can and will do the job for less, which is why I posed the question:






PR is also damage control in an unwinnable situation.



Again, we don't have all the facts, such as why is the employee not receiving child support from the father? There could be a very legitimate reason for this but we don't have it.

And I have a hard time believing that every single mother at this bank cannot make ends meet on the wage they receive. Some of them may even receive the same wage (or less). We don't know.

I am merely stating that I find it hard to blame the company for this situation, especially without all of the facts. Despite what I feel is the implication, I have not been dismissive of this employee's plight and have tried to consider some of the challenges that we were not privy to.

But at the end of the day, no one is forcing her to do this particular job. And no one is talking about the expense side of her conundrum. No one is talking about the costs of living in California and why it is the way it is. Mr. Dimon could have countered with the same questions I had for Congresswoman Porter, which as far as I am concerned are legitimate, but there is no chance that turns out well for him. He took the smallest loss he could and moved on.

So let me get this straight, you don't have facts to add, the banker didn't have facts to add and your argument is that maybe we don't have all of the facts?

There are things you can do to mitigate foreign competition. We can impose tariffs. You see, I'm not of the mind that one side or the other has all of the answers. We can give tax credits to companies who create American jobs and impose tax increases on companies who move jobs out of the country or import the products they sell here.

But then that really doesn't apply to people who work at the bank or make your burgers does it? So while yes it does address some jobs, not nearly most of the jobs these minimum wage laws would impact.

To control damage, damage must have been inflicted. You can not control damage that does not exist.

It seems that some feel that you need to work "in a field of expertise" not to live in poverty in The United States. I find that concept very troubling.

Here's a problem with your theory. Someone has to do all of these jobs. Someone will be working at local bank branches. Someone will be flipping your burger. If one person moves on to a better job, someone will still be working in these positions. All of these people have mouths to feed, rent to pay and other expenses it takes to live.

And let's stop the charade that business will just magically work people less hours or streamline to eliminate jobs. That's what they do all of the time. They outsource jobs. The move jobs overseas. People seem to promote some dream world where companies and corporations are simply handing out jobs and hours to their employees out of the goodness of their heart. that's a false reality and you know it.

Companies are in business to make money. They do not continue paying wages to employees to do jobs they do not need. They don't graciously give their employees hours to build things or produce things they can not sell.

No, demand from the consumer drives jobs. We have a supply and demand economic system. Putting more money in the hands of those who need things drives up spending and creates demand. Meeting that demand drives the need to create jobs.

We've seen what catering to those who already have with claims that it will trickle down to those who have less has gotten us. It has gotten us to the point that those who have, have more. and those who had less, have less. Those stock options look pretty good right now. wages suck. That has to change.

You make comments like this and wonder why discussion on this board has gone downhill.




First, the Porter video used an example of a parent with 1 kid. What if she had 5 kids? What would be considered a living wage varies from family to family. Are you proposing we pay people based on how many kids they have instead of the quality of work?

You seem to assume that every company in the country is raking in billions of dollars. They are not. Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other companies are losing money right now. Airlines lost in the realm of 150 billion. Now you want to double their payroll because you think they can afford it. Thats not going to work. That will lead to layoffs.

I'll use Southwest as an example. They avoided layoffs in 2020, but had to layoff this year. Before they did, they offered a paycut with no layoffs. Pay would be restored as passenger volume returns to normal. The union rejected it. So 6,000 people lost their jobs.

If you double payroll for a company that is losing money, layoffs will be the result. Thats not making an excuse, thats pointing out problems.

On the flip side of that, there is companies like Verizon. Verizon spends an ungodly amount of money to fight with the union. It would be cheaper just to give in to the union. Clearly, the fight is not about the money. Some companies are just run by scumbags.

You seem to think there is a one size fits all solution here. There is not. Cost of living varies from state to state. As others have said 100 times in this thread, minimum wage should be determined at a more local level.

Minimum wage should definitely be tied to inflation and cost of living. We could tie it to profitability and to an extent, it should. A company like Amazon has no excuse not to pay living wages. Not every company rakes in money like Amazon.

It is not that difficult to do it by county if you want to go that far, there are cost indexes by metropolitan area or county as well.

There is not a one size fits all answer. Yet at the same time we need a base to make decisions on. And no I don't think mom and pops businesses make a lot of money. Corporations losing a lot of money during a pandemic isn't normal or in no way resembles the norm.

By contrast it seems you wish to discount anyone but a single person be taken into account. What you are proposing is that a person or family be paid according to how well or how poorly a business is run or how profitable that business is. Once again you think people should be treated according to who they work for rather than people who work 40 hours a week be treated somewhere close to making a wage to live on.

I find it very odd that people who promote survival of the fittest and those who can't compete get left behind by those who can, suddenly do not apply that to business but do when it comes to their fellow Americans. Very odd indeed.

Here's a reality. Our nation was built on the backs of the impoverished. First we had slaves. We had the Chinese who built the railroads. As each new group of immigrants came, they were all treated the same. The Irish, the Italians. Now it is the Mexicans. In every one of those cases it was those people who were vilified. As all of these people were vilified, business used these people like dogs and made a fortune from their labor.

We were told that Mexicans crossing our border were "animals". We were told "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

Meanwhile American business are hiring these people and lining their pockets off of their labor. History just keeps repeating itself.

What some of you are trying to excuse here is that we continue to cater to the business world why ignoring the life of our own people. That somehow there is a segment of our society whose jobs are just not important enough for them to deserve to make a living in America.

I find that extremely troubling.

One would have to have a mandated formula by which to arrive at that figure in order to insure that it not be manipulated to either increase nor decrease the wages depending on which politicians are in power. That method would make the process far more difficult to ever enforce.

I'll give you the roll out of the vaccine as an example. When you leave major impact decisions to be divided in a huge multitude of municipalities it creates a boatload of confusion.

There's never going to be this perfect solution everyone is seeking. Would your minimum wage be set by where you work or where you live? As it stands now I'd like to give you an example of what I'm saying. I live in Tennessee. We have no state income tax which is a wonderful thing. But it's not that simple. Our sales tax is above 9%. That also includes your food at the grocery store. So it's a trade off to some extent. By contrast, the sales tax in Kentucky is 6%. Kentucky has a 6% sales tax and does not tax groceries. People along the Tennessee/Kentucky border never shop in Tennessee. Why would they? They simpy cross the border into Kentucky to shop. Can you imagine just the savings in food costs alone annually by avoiding paying a 9+% sales tax on it? Tennessee businesses pay for this. People try to insinuate only the poor game the system. That's simply not true.

So I could see how it could easily be manipulated into living in one area and doing business or working in another area would easily be used to take advantage if we broke it into so many localities which people can easily move back and forth. Like i said, no perfect solution will ever be found.

So true, but they’ll keep looking for one, and they will forever. Meanwhile people can starve. If an employer cant afford to pay a decent wage of $15 an hour then they can do the work themselves, move their biz, or shut down.

Say goodbye to your restaurants, then.

How would I, or the banking executive, have facts to add to the situation? The only person who could do that is the employee because it's her situation we're trying to solve. I've offered potential solutions based on the information I do have and have noted that it cannot be determined if they are viable or not without more information. But to focus solely on her wage as Congresswoman Porter did seems very shortsighted (and self-serving) to me, at least in this particular case.




1. Where did I claim that the current reality is one of companies handing out jobs out of the goodness of their heart?

2. Which part of this comment supports the implication made by the video you posted that the bank alone is responsible for this employee's budget gap because they have not paid a "livable" wage?


My other argument in this thread has been that increasing the minimum wage will not redistribute income (not wealth) from the upper classes to the lower classes. Outside of these two I've put forth no other theories. If there's specifically something else in your post you want me to address, let me know (not intended as snark).

I find it hilarious that well to do people don't want poor people to make more money because prices will(might) go up. Better those poor people struggle than feel any discomfort whatsoever on the other end of the income spectrum... whatever.