>Reddit circlejerk for the $15 minimum wage
>Retard makes assumptions
>"all low wage workers work 2 jobs"
>thinks raising wage would increase # of jobs
>Ask for source
>Get downvoted
Liberals are economically illiterate, what else is new?
>>55871129
> since job employers will have to raise wages they'll raise employers
Lol no they won't, they'll just go out of business unless they're big enough to afford it, in which case they'll hire illegal workers or hire less because it's cheaper
Or at the very least, raise standards so whoever can work will work 15 dollars an hour's worth.
Do these people think that employers care about the well being of their employees and not their profit margins
They're narcissists.
Asking for a source is seen as an insult, because it implies you don't believe what they're saying.
welcome to /pol/
dude weed lmao
>>55871129
I don't believe anyone on reddit actually works.
>hey bro check out my karma
>yeah bro I'm get 100k karma next week
>you see my karma bro yeah my karama is so high
>>55871129
His reasoning made my brain hurt.
How could you possibly source economic speculation? He's on the same authoritative footing as someone with a PhD in Economics: no empirical real world evidence to support their theories.
If the entire idea of raising the minimum wage is to get more money at the end of each month, why would they give up their additional job to just end up earning the same amount.
>>55871770
1. His claim relied on the idea that most minimum wage workers work 2 jobs, thus the wage increase's resulting unemployment would be countered by people quitting their second job. There is ZERO reason to believe he's right in claiming such, asking for a source on that particular element in justified.
2. No, a random reddit faggot is not as qualified to speak on economic matters as an actual fucking economist.
>>55871888
The reasoning is if some guy would give up working 60 hours a week to only work 40 and earn the same. A lot of people working multiple jobs don't get 40 hours with one employer to make enough to live
>>55872101
Fair point.
>>55871916
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/multiple-jobholding-over-the-past-two-decades.htm in case you need some cold hard numbers to challenge his assertions.
>>55871888
If jobs had to pay more, they would just continue the trend of cutting down the number of hours each employee gets and reducing full time employment since people work multiple part time jobs because employers don't have to pay as much benefits to part time workers, so they go out of their way to hire a bunch of part time workers instead of fewer full time employees.
>>55871129
LoL thats fucking ultimate retarded. Increasing wages will increase prices so they themselves will be out of any things they are used to get. Brilliant.
>>55871129
The problem with our current economy isn't a scarcity of resources, it's the fact that all the economic power (and thus the ability to obtain, use and direct those resources) is being voraciously pumped up to the upper echelons of society. That's why the current distribution of wealth looks like it does, not because the top 5% somehow worked hard enough or contributed enough to earn more than triple than the other 95% combined.
The argument for higher minimum wage is to force some of those resources back down in the short term, and slow the ruthless exploitation of the economic system in the long term. There's a lot of debate on how exactly it should be handled, but the general consensus is that by putting more spending power into the lower income brackets will not only reinvigorate the economy, it'll actually boost the value of skilled labor as well (the pay of skilled jobs being overwhelmingly demonstrated to be linked to the lowest earners, not the highest).
The common counter-argument is that prices will simply rise to accommodate the pay rise, leading to little to no increase in actual spending power. The problem with this hypothesis is that it doesn't account for invisible marketing value, such as brand loyalty and whatnot, nor does in account for market competition. Essentially, any company that suddenly hikes it's prices to recover their losses in pay will be committing suicide as they're easily undercut by competitors, especially small businesses that currently are usually the ones being undercut, who are willing to accept lower bottom line profits than a massive corporation (also likely resulting in larger profits compared to their current margins).
tl;dr: A properly structured increase of the minimum wage would benefit literally everyone except the elite who currently game and exploit the market (call them reptilians/Jews/Illuminati/whatever). This is also why it's likely to never happen.
>>55873038
Correction. The top 5% earn more than double (72% of all financial wealth) than the rest of the 95% combined (29% of all financial wealth). The 101% total is due to the way the estimations are rounded. Also note that this doesn't account for wealth manipulated in such a way to hide it's existence, such as offshore accounts.
Not sure how I mixed that up.
>>55871524
Yeah it's funny that libshits think they will be the ones getting these excess jobs that will apparrently exist if the minimum wage rises
>>55873038
>>55873555
The actual statistic is roughly 20/80, and this is a power law called the Pareto Principle. 20% own 80% of the wealth, 80% own 20%.
There is large amounts of class mobility in the United States
Raising the minimum wage is a terrible idea economically that just raises unemployment and prices while doing nothing to the rich.
Learn economics please.
Do these fags not understand purchasing power and inflation or what?
The price of everything will go up because it can and and suddenly they'll be right back where they started, unable to afford anything and working two jobs.
Oh and no doubt they rich will just get richer faster.
So in the end, prices on everything double, rent doubles, and Bill Gates is twice as rich.
I thought these folks were supposed to be for the little guy?
>>55873732
>The actual statistic is roughly 20/80, and this is a power law called the Pareto Principle. 20% own 80% of the wealth, 80% own 20%.
That's a fascinating statistic you have there, considering it flies in the face of every fully published bit of research, including the Wolff estimation (the most widely respected estimation in modern economics). According to them, it's closer to the top 20% owning roughly 95% of the financial wealth in America. What's your source?
>There is large amounts of class mobility in the United States
I hate to go to wikipedia, but I doubt most of 4chan as access to the subscriptions necessary to read the relevant journals. Basically the following link boils down to fact that you just pulled that statement out of your ass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#United_States
>Raising the minimum wage is a terrible idea economically that just raises unemployment and prices while doing nothing to the rich.
Maybe I'm wasting my time posting sources, seeing as you lack either the inclination or the ability to read my posts.
>>55873038
>any company that suddenly hikes it's prices to recover their losses in pay will be committing suicide as they're easily undercut by competitors
Is this why generic WalMart shoes are a better money maker than 200 dollar Air Jordans?
>>55873732
This isn't even an argument. Of course there is a difference in the 20/80 gap and and the 5/95 gap, dipshit. You're comparing 2 different things
>>55874233
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
>In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.
Even eight years later, it hasn't changed much from that. The top 1% owns 35% of the nation's wealth.
2. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/americans-are-economically-mobile
>"For example, nearly 60 percent of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999 moved to a higher income group by 2007."
3. Your counter-argument was shit, and amounted to "Hurr eat the rich". Raising the minimum wage just collapses the lowest earners and those immediately above them into one category, it drags people down, it does nothing to those with millions of dollars.
Minimum wage is anti-competition legislation. Employers bid wages upward since labor is a scarce resource just like everything else, the thing that keeps the wages of fast food workers and grocery clerks, etc so low is that workers compete against each other. When you have a massive amount of people competing for jobs that anyone can do with 1 days worth of training, of course competition is going to lower the price of that labor.
It's not evil capitalists holding down wages of low skilled workers, it's other workers.
doesnt the netherlands have some of the lowest wealth inequality, highest material wellness and the highest earnings per hour?
minimum wage is 10 usd and that will get taxed something like 35-40%
why not look there?
i think how it works out here is that from the taxes you can get a lot of financial aid for all kinds of things meaning you don't pay full price on living costs. for minimum wage you probably get more in financial aid than you pay in taxes.
the costs of these items are controlled and limited which keeps them low and so everyone has access to them and should be able to afford them
so reasonable minimum wage, pretty high taxes, aid gets spread out and mostly goes to lower income, greatly reducing their living costs, they get a comfortable and livable situation
>>55874385
The funny thing is that they actually are. The underlying principle is why Walmart is so hilariously profitable.
The cheaper shoes receive a remarkably larger share of the market and sell at a much higher volume than the more expensive luxury shoes. While the profit per unit is much lower, the sheer volume of units sold more than makes up for it.
>>55874562
We're not talking about net wealth, we're talking about financial wealth. Net wealth is not has has very little to do with spending power or the minimum wage (you can't spend your car or your cooking utensils unless you're absolutely desperate). Funnily enough the citation that wikipedia is using is actually the Wolff estimation as well, so I'll take it that you're ceding the point.
For the second bit, there are very good reasons we measure economic mobility in quintiles and not by income groups. In this case it means that 60% of people below sustenance income got only slightly below sustenance income, and it says nothing about the permanence of that change, They could have gotten a full time job and lost it inside of a month and they would still count towards that statistic.
I've already dealt with your third point in my first post, not my fault you didn't care to read it. Perhaps you should learn to Economics.
>>55874782
Min wage should atleast provide for a room/apartment to live in so your not homeless.
>>55875163
You are talking out of your obscurantist ass. Post your degree and maybe I will consider what you are saying enough to refute it Until then you are just waffling.
Here's mine.
>>55875574
more homelessness and welfare is what the minimum wage creates. Like I said, it's anti-competition legislation. I have not heard any economist say that the minimum wage creates mass unemployment, but rather that it hurts the people it is designed to help.
Example, blacks who get shit schooling, talk Nig Latin and can't write a coherent sentence now have to compete with white kids who come from families that are much better off and who can afford better schooling, and employers have to pay the same price for each.
White unions in apartheid South Africa did a similar thing, they just knew enough about economics to know that pricing out nignogs would limit competition and put black competition out of business.
>>55875813
And we end with a pure appeal to authority from someone who doesn't know the difference between net worth and financial wealth in relation to spending power. You're cheering me up more than my Scotch.
Maybe you should take some Philosophy courses next so that you can argue yourself out of a wet paper bag. Granted, I'm not sure how much help that would be, judging from your unique grasp of basic principles and pride in a Bachelor's degree from a state school.
>>55871524
This.
Worked at a retail store making min wage of 7.15 as a cashier. Within a month I got promoted and made 7.85. Within two and a half after that I got another promotion making 9.35. Another four months after that I made salary at 13.50 an hour on average, working more than 40hrs a week.
I can say that it's because of hard work. While everyone else wanted to hide and sit around, take nonstop bathroom breaks or longer breaks in general because they felt like they were worth more than minimum wage. Obviously they were not, I was pretty hated especially by the people who were there before me. I think my only friend was some gold digger who wanted the D and saw me as a way to climb the work ladder.
Essentially these are lazy Fucks who don't want to work for their money and feel like they just deserve shit because they were raised thinking they're special snowflakes.
>>55876220
I think the principle behind the suggestion is that nobody should need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet and we'll just hope that everyone that isn't worth whatever minimum wage that standard requires can have their welfare supported by everyone that is.
