(07-10-2019 01:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.
Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.
Link
Thanks for posting. Interesting that the jobs lost are primarily teenagers and part-time workers. A lot less of a problem, IMO, than 1.3 million full-time adult earners losing their jobs. Big difference in those categories.
I've only done a cursory review of this thread and may be way off...
But if I'm understanding the comment, this is demonstrating the very clear point that people like me want to make on this issue.
You're putting 'part time and teenagers' ... the very people who should be earning the 'minimum' wage.... out of work by instituting a supposedly living wage that shouldn't apply to them... as employers become more picky about whom they want to pay $10-$15 or whatever the 'minimum' wage is to full time and more experienced workers.
If you take those part-time and teenage workers out of the current numbers, I wonder how much of an impact this is really having on the average wages earned by full-time and more experienced workers? It seems self-evident to me that if I had to pay $15 to someone that I previously paid $10 to... that in addition to 'letting go' of those whose skills and experience wouldn't warrant a doubling of their wage, that I'd simply demand more work out of the remaining workers.... not hire as many... so now I have someone with experience who is working harder and earning more, but they're still an 'entry level' employee... and I'm going to keep them there as long as it takes. Sure, if I can raise prices I will, but I don't see anyone accepting meaningfully higher healthcare prices... or gas prices... or rent... or especially food (a very high labor product)...
so what really happens is that the young, those returning to the workplace etc etc get kept out... employees who 'were' rising up the ladder are now set back at a minimum wage... with young and hungry people willing to take their places... AND most importantly... those currently earning say $15-20/hr... who WERE earning a living wage, are now seeing their net income cut... because prices of things like food rise.
Bottom line, the impact of such decisions are much more complex than studies like these ever seem to take into account. The markets are all about 'balance', and if you change one component, EVERYTHING will adjust to create a new equilibrium. SOme jobs will go away and be replaced by higher paying ones, but unless unemployment is very low (which runs counter to the premise in the first place) all you're doing is shuffling who is really paying the cost.... and no matter how you look at it, it will STILL be people at the bottom of the ladder paying the price.
The guy buying the car that takes 300 man-hours to build will now be paying $1500 more for his $100,000 car... and while the 10 guys building that car now make $15 rather than $10/hr, so $450 rather than $300... the owner lays off the one of them that can't now do 10 hours of work in 9 hours.