(02-08-2019 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I used an extreme case to show that raising the MW has effects, far more wide-reaching that a bigger take home pay.

It seems to be a tenet of liberal thought that the wealthy, in this case business owners and operators, can and will absorb all sorts of extra costs without reacting.

I worked a MW job in the 60's, for $1.25/hour. I would guess that people working that job today would make $10-12/hr, but their standard of living would be about the same as those who worked it 50 years ago.

But it isn't that easy. If it was true that all minimum wage increases kill jobs, then why do we have a net increase of jobs with a minimum wage in the first place?

Net increases in population have a little to do with that when you think about it.

Quote:Why then, did we not have a mass exodus of jobs when the federal minimum wage was increased multiple times?

In the long term the minimum wage has zero effect. Everything stabilizes with a ratchet upwards. Nominally speaking everyone wins. Relatively speaking no one gains.

It is the short term effects that are pernicious. For example, the guy whom is replacing 15% of his head count with technology readily admits that he constantly 'upgrades' employees to better positions from the lowest level. Minimum wage jobs are fundamentally training grounds.

Now, instead of a 6 head count at the front, he is reducing to 3. There are now, by definition, 50% fewer people who stand the chance of being upgraded to, say, manager of straw counting (which may disappear because of other California policies).

So the left sings Hosannas over the lives they have 'uplifted' -- all the while the training grounds for further advancement for *lots* more people is being curtailed.

Idiotic.