(08-29-2015 09:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:58 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Paint it in whatever fashion you wish. The fact is....the businessman's bottom line is what drives this and wages are a huge part of that factor. Elimination of labor is profit driven. This does not happen if the labor is cheaper than cost of the equipment to replace it. This is direct consequence of artificially increased labor costs.

Technology does one thing...get cheaper...those workers will be replaced either way...no way around it...so you try to politicize it for your side...shocking! lol

Those "politicizing" it are the ones out marching for a $15 minimum wage so that they can pretend they care about poor people (by making them unemployable sooner).

Last I looked, the right to assemble and protest is in the constitution...

Absolutely. Even when they're rooting against their own interests.

Well played.

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:58 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:36 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Nope...that's progress, not consequence...I love how folks want to act like self checkout hasn't been a thing for over a decade now...fast food has been testing it for years.

Welcome to the future

Paint it in whatever fashion you wish. The fact is....the businessman's bottom line is what drives this and wages are a huge part of that factor. Elimination of labor is profit driven. This does not happen if the labor is cheaper than cost of the equipment to replace it. This is direct consequence of artificially increased labor costs.

Technology does one thing...get cheaper...those workers will be replaced either way...no way around it...so you try to politicize it for your side...shocking! lol

Those "politicizing" it are the ones out marching for a $15 minimum wage so that they can pretend they care about poor people (by making them unemployable sooner).

Last I looked, the right to assemble and protest is in the constitution...

Um, I never said or implied otherwise. You have serious reading comprehension issues.

You brought up politicization. When politicians are joining in with and championing an issue that is being protested, I'm pretty sure it is being politicized.

More people go on welfare. Maybe we can import more illegals too.

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:58 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:36 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Nope...that's progress, not consequence...I love how folks want to act like self checkout hasn't been a thing for over a decade now...fast food has been testing it for years.

Welcome to the future

Paint it in whatever fashion you wish. The fact is....the businessman's bottom line is what drives this and wages are a huge part of that factor. Elimination of labor is profit driven. This does not happen if the labor is cheaper than cost of the equipment to replace it. This is direct consequence of artificially increased labor costs.

Technology does one thing...get cheaper...those workers will be replaced either way...no way around it...so you try to politicize it for your side...shocking! lol

Those "politicizing" it are the ones out marching for a $15 minimum wage so that they can pretend they care about poor people (by making them unemployable sooner).

Last I looked, the right to assemble and protest is in the constitution...

Except at the Supreme Court Plaza:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/c...story.html

The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Let's not forget that these laws are inflationary. Wages and costs associated with them are part of business overhead and factored into pricing of goods and services. When you raise wages...prices raise also. Along with employers looking to reduce labor and considering automation, this is another consequence of artificially raising wages above market value.

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:53 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The WAPO had a good article recently on Restaurant Automation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/c...story.html

As far as Min wage - While the federal 7.25 should be indexed to inflation or something, There should also be some factor for local cost of living. $15 is greater than the average averly wage in some states. In some areas though people will still struggle on $15. It is not a one size fits all due to local variations.

So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Why do you hate the disabled?

(08-30-2015 11:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Why do you hate the disabled?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Another great examples of illogical responses from Paul M to add to your portfolio, you must be so proud.

(08-30-2015 11:36 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Why do you hate the disabled?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Another great examples of illogical responses from Paul M to add to your portfolio, you must be so proud.

Just like a typical liberal, act first without thinking about the consequences of others. You do something for the public good, only to screw people over when you actions have unintended consenquences.

This is what happens when you dont think things through.

So while you may not believe you hate the disabled, your actions screw them over as badly as someone who does.

If you dont want to screw over the disabled people, come up with a solution that helps some people without screwing other over. That requires input from people who you dont like, because, those are smart people, whether you know it or not.

(08-30-2015 12:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:36 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Why do you hate the disabled?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Another great examples of illogical responses from Paul M to add to your portfolio, you must be so proud.

Just like a typical liberal, act first without thinking about the consequences of others. You do something for the public good, only to screw people over when you actions have unintended consenquences.

This is what happens when you dont think things through.

So while you may not believe you hate the disabled, your actions screw them over as badly as someone who does.

If you dont want to screw over the disabled people, come up with a solution that helps some people without screwing other over. That requires input from people who you dont like, because, those are smart people, whether you know it or not.

I'm not convinced that that is an actual unintended consequence. Do you have any employment data showing a decrease in employment of the disabled that accompanies a rise in the minimum wage? That would be an obvious starting point before you start making claims like this.

(08-30-2015 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:36 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Why do you hate the disabled?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Another great examples of illogical responses from Paul M to add to your portfolio, you must be so proud.

Just like a typical liberal, act first without thinking about the consequences of others. You do something for the public good, only to screw people over when you actions have unintended consenquences.

This is what happens when you dont think things through.

So while you may not believe you hate the disabled, your actions screw them over as badly as someone who does.

If you dont want to screw over the disabled people, come up with a solution that helps some people without screwing other over. That requires input from people who you dont like, because, those are smart people, whether you know it or not.

I'm not convinced that that is an actual unintended consequence. Do you have any employment data showing a decrease in employment of the disabled that accompanies a rise in the minimum wage? That would be an obvious starting point before you start making claims like this.

I have plenty to back up my initial claim of summer youth jobs.

Disagreeing with the impact on the handicapped wasnt your original statement. You agreed with it.

"They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"?

You didnt disagree that the higher minimum wage left out disabled people. You were concerned that lowering the minimum wage would allow companies to hire disabled people for less of a wage than they were paying non-disabled people.

So make up your mind. What is your outrage? If you dont believe the numbers, then reducing the minimum wage wouldnt be a problem, would it?

(08-30-2015 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 12:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:36 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Why do you hate the disabled?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Another great examples of illogical responses from Paul M to add to your portfolio, you must be so proud.

Just like a typical liberal, act first without thinking about the consequences of others. You do something for the public good, only to screw people over when you actions have unintended consenquences.

This is what happens when you dont think things through.

So while you may not believe you hate the disabled, your actions screw them over as badly as someone who does.

If you dont want to screw over the disabled people, come up with a solution that helps some people without screwing other over. That requires input from people who you dont like, because, those are smart people, whether you know it or not.

I'm not convinced that that is an actual unintended consequence. Do you have any employment data showing a decrease in employment of the disabled that accompanies a rise in the minimum wage? That would be an obvious starting point before you start making claims like this.

I have plenty to back up my initial claim of summer youth jobs.

Disagreeing with the impact on the handicapped wasnt your original statement. You agreed with it.

"They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"?

You didnt disagree that the higher minimum wage left out disabled people. You were concerned that lowering the minimum wage would allow companies to hire disabled people for less of a wage than they were paying non-disabled people.

So make up your mind. What is your outrage? If you dont believe the numbers, then reducing the minimum wage wouldnt be a problem, would it?

Where? Where is the evidence backing that claim up?

And no, I was paraphrasing the poster above me in an obvious show of revulsion, hence the quotation marks signifying that those weren't my words. Context clues such as "Holy hell, really?" give that away even more clearly. Not even sure what the rest of your post is trying to say, it's all over the place and entirely predicated upon a blatant misrepresentation of my views.

Show me that increased minimum wages have hurt the employment of the disabled, should be easy enough, and the first step you would do to test whether or not the statement made by Fo Shizzle is accurate.

(08-29-2015 12:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:36 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Consequences are a MOFO.

Nope...that's progress, not consequence...I love how folks want to act like self checkout hasn't been a thing for over a decade now...fast food has been testing it for years.

Welcome to the future

Paint it in whatever fashion you wish. The fact is....the businessman's bottom line is what drives this and wages are a huge part of that factor. Elimination of labor is profit driven. This does not happen if the labor is cheaper than cost of the equipment to replace it. This is direct consequence of artificially increased labor costs.

Technology does one thing...get cheaper...those workers will be replaced either way...no way around it...so you try to politicize it for your side...shocking! lol

Good post by Owl. This was an inevitability, just like any other sort of machinery or technology, and arguing that we should strive to provide human wages so low as to prevent this is asinine.

Huh?

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less.

Based upon?
Source?
And how many is many?
Who with skills worth more than the minimum wage would be paid less? And why would such a person remain in such a job?

(08-30-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:52 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  So..The minimum wage does in fact allow employers to underpay employees in some circumstances. This is why the marketplace of competition for workers should set the wage...not bureaucrats.

The marketplace does set the wages in most cases even with the minimum wage. However if no min wage many people would be paid even less. The issue is primarily at the lower end of the work force for unskilled workers. In DC the min wage is around $9.25 now. I have no problem with a federal min wage, just saying that one size will not fit all. Most adults working at the low end are also receiving federal assistance in one way or another. So we are paying for it one way or another.

Incorrect. Most jobs in our area pay higher than the federal minimum wage already.

However, by removing the artificially inflated minimum wage, employers will be able to start back up summer jobs programs so that high school teens can work at an unskilled job to gain experience and spending money.

The issue with the federal minimum wage (and other federal regulations) is that it is too expensive for companies to offer a summer jobs program anymore.

By removing the federal minimum wage, current positions will not see much of a movement down, because they are already elevated above the federal min wage floor. But you will open up additional positions for those who are currently have the most difficult time finding a job.

Minimum wages also exclude low skilled or handicapped workers from being hired at a lower wage that they would probably be happy to receive. Employers are forced to hire the most able bodied and skilled workers they can in order to try and justify the higher wage. The minimum wage is in fact discriminatory in nature.

Holy hell, really? That's your defense of removing minimum wage? "They'd be able to hire more disabled people and pay them less"? That's a first.

Only adding a philosophical comment about the consequences of government intervention in the labor market. I fully know the minimum wage will not be removed.