Here's why that's so important, and who it would help -- in less than 10 words: Democrats need to buy some more low information voters.
I have cut back on my spending. Increase the products even more so, I will not be buying. Some of the pricing now of things that I would like to have, I walk away and keep my money. It would give the politicians more power to pen in for increase taxing. The feds now want us to give more money to prop up millions through higher taxing.
The last time I made anywhere near the minimum wage I was 16. Not to give my age away, but everything was painted red, white & blue that year. If you’re 35 and making the minimum wage, you’ve probably made some poor choices along the way...
Secondly, the video says nothing about the unemployment effects. Work by Parnes, Fliesher, and other shows that increased unemployment always follows an increase in the minimum wage. The idea that the minimum wage helps the young, inexperienced, often minority worker, is a myth. Indeed, the first people laid off after a minimum wage increase are the young, inexperienced, often minority worker. The only reason unions support it is because they use it as an argument for "losing ground" to unskilled workers.
The only sustainable, non-inflationary, way for workers to get higher pay is to be worth that higher pay, and that means being more productive. If you're 35 making minimum wage, you have some serious productivity problems.
Raise it to whatever, but how much to actually make them WORK?
The reason they want a higher minimum wage is to help inflate the tax revenue. It’s a way of taxing companies indirectly.
Any minimum wage hike is inflationary in nature unless it is based on an increase in efficiency or productivity.
A minimum wage hike would result in other wages being bumped up.
A more skilled worker will not sit still for a minimum wage unskilled worker making the same wage.
Higher wages would drive up production costs and the cost of doing business making it necessary for businesses to increase prices.
Higher wages (wage inflation) would allow Obama to claim he raised personal income for the nation even though there was no increase in employment and no real increase in purchasing power.
Higher prices (price inflation) would allow Obama to claim he thincreased the GNP even ough actual production remained the same.
This video is absurd.
Wages are a calculated cost of production. so if wages go up, so does the cost of everything, which is translated directly to the cash register. Union scale is directly tied to minimum wage, with automatic increases when minimum wage increases. And as a consequence, more real dollars are taken out of the economy in taxes artificially imposed by those increases.
And inevitably, some businesses relying upon low wage workers which cannot compensate for the increased cost will instead cut back (either less hours, or less jobs) in order to make do... Hence the net job creation will decrease, directly effecting those on the bottom who are desperately looking for work.
So to recap:
In general, forced wage increase is a wash as retail price will compensate for cost.
More real dollars will be taken out of the economy and given to the government.
Unions get a spiff.
Jobs will be lost.
Watch and see.
The minimum wage always hurts low and medium wage workers.
Think of it this way. A low skilled person is capable of producing some value, in dollars, per hour. No matter what “she” is paid, “she can’t produce more value than her skills enable “her” to produce.
When “her” employer is forced to pay “her” more than the value “she” produces, one of three things may happen.
First, the other employees may be convinced (or forced) to receive less than that justified by the value they produce, thereby subsidizing the low-value and low-skill employee.
Second, the employer, may out of his own charitable sentiments, choose to earn less profit on operations of the business. This of course has limits. Owners who don’t earn profits close businesses.
Third, the employer may choose to end the employment of the low-value, low-skill employee. The work “she” formerly did must still be done, so it might be distributed among the high-value employees. Or, if possible, the low-value employee might be replaced with capital investments and technology. If the work is distributed, the net value that can be produced by a high-value employee is reduced, and so they ultimately are paid less,too, because they produce less. They are less satisfied at their jobs, due to the requirements of performing menial (oops, less-high-value) tasks.
Does anyone benefit? Possibly the supplier of technological replacements for low-skilled workers.
Can’t we just educate the low-skilled? No. Not everyone is willing to be educated or to to do high skilled work. Some people are barely motivated to work at all. For those, the threat of no work might be a motivator, but the ease of the dole beckons.
It’s true that less damage might be done if the employer were to just force the others to subsidize the low skilled. Pushing them onto the dole increases their net costs, as substantially more tax dollars must be obtained to support its cost, as the government takes its cut to enrich its insiders and friends, and pay for its own minimally skilled employees.
In the end, a minimum wage just outlaws employment of low-value employees, unless they are subsidized through welfare payments or reduction of compensation to all employees.
The big-government/big-corporate crony-fascist complex doesn't care that the pie will get smaller. They just want the whole pie.
You can’t pay more in wages than is produced. It’s foolish to think otherwise.