$15 min. wage would cut 1.4M jobs in the US

[Chromatican 4,046]

Just now, FATCAT said:

If corporations (or small businesses) had the choice, they'd be paying people less than $7.25 an hour. They don't give a ****.

People will scream that raising the minimum wage will hurt small businesses, but why should businesses be open if they can't pay their employees more than $7.25 an hour? That is blatant exploitation.

[Rj Barker 3,331]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

If corporations (or small businesses) had the choice, they'd be paying people less than $7.25 an hour. They don't give a ****.

Not all of them! I run a small business and I pay every single member of staff (regardless of age) above the minimum wage of a 25 Yr old, and I have 60+ staff. We aren't all horrid! Haha 

[Shipper 13,114]

Minimum wage SHOULD be increasing as the cost of living increases. All the money just goes to the top now and interest groups would put the blame on legislators than actually putting the blame on people getting all the money. 

[Enigma 7,182]

Capitalism is not viable and this is another indicator of that. 

ESPECIALLY in the upcoming era of mass automation.

You think a system where most jobs will be replaced by machines YET in which you need a job to survive is good?

It’s gonna crumble real quick.

Socialism would fix many issues like this because in socialism, you’re paid for the value you create, not the hours. And the workers own their workplace, so they decide their wages. They have an incentive to make their company thrive because unlike capitalism, the well being of the company will reflect on their wage.

I could go on and on but you guys should be looking into it. It’s crazy how much anti-socialism propaganda we’re fed when it’s the most logical system. The only ones gaining from keeping capitalism are the rich minority.

[Kadikaado 4,302]

It's just like slavery, the end of it was terrible for many "businesses", but that's the right thing to do!

[Rj Barker 3,331]

2 minutes ago, Kadikaado said:

It's just like slavery, the end of it was terrible for many "businesses", but that's the right thing to do!

But the majority of it is just corporate greed, businesses can afford the wage hike provided its done slowly as it is projected to be. People just don't want to cut into their profit margins.

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, KORG said:

Thats not how the economy works. They said the same about the wages in the UK.

You know whats happened by people having more disposable income? They spend more, stimulating the economy because taxes are taken on more purchases. The wheels of finance are turning nicely.

You know what increased demand causes? Increased supply. That means more jobs.

Well, that's not entirely true either, and it depends a lot on country and culture.

Japanese families, for example, tend to save a lot more than European/British ones. You can find several studies online, but Japan (and Asian tbh) is a notoriously hard economy to stimulate via increasing disposable income.  

America falls somewhere in the middle, though. But that still doesn't mean that increasing M1 money supply would increase spending by that much. And American saving has generally ticked upwards in recent years. And no, increasing M1 money supply doesn't increase demand. 

All else equal, an increase in wages would cause businesses to (1) raise prices and (2) layoff workers. An increase in prices would initially cause businesses to decrease supply. An increase in consumer spending would not offset this in the short term. This is because the demand curve is unchanged, and people save some % of their income regardless of what it is. This would be a short term (temporary) equilibrium. 

Overtime, in the long run, you would expect to see a new demand curve emerge (or rightward shift of the demand curve) as people begin to realize their higher wage is stable, and businesses would again increase the price but at a higher supply. Business would then also use those profits to likely higher more workers, and the economy would again be at long-term equilibrium.  

Graphs below

Spoiler

labor supply short term effect:

Spoiler

longer term equilibrium shift:

 

[ALGAYDO 35,061]

If you can’t “afford” to pay your workers a livable wage, then you shouldn’t be in business. **** this corporate greed. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

11 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Capitalism is not viable and this is another indicator of that. 

ESPECIALLY in the upcoming era of mass automation.

You think a system where most jobs will be replaced by machines YET in which you need a job to survive is good?

It’s gonna crumble real quick.

Socialism would fix many issues like this because in socialism, you’re paid for the value you create, not the hours. And the workers own their workplace, so they decide their wages. They have an incentive to make their company thrive because unlike capitalism, the well being of the company will reflect on their wage.

I could go on and on but you guys should be looking into it. It’s crazy how much anti-socialism propaganda we’re fed when it’s the most logical system. The only ones gaining from keeping capitalism are the rich minority.

How would socialism deal with the era of automation though...

You still have to find jobs for people to do, and the international economy will still be free market (mostly).

[MJHolland 12,725]

11 minutes ago, Kadikaado said:

It's just like slavery, the end of it was terrible for many "businesses", but that's the right thing to do!

It's not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do / will be better for the health of the economy in the long run 

Honestly, this is a non-story. Any economist could predict layoffs as a result of increasing the minimum wage. It's very basic labor-supply stuff. If they don't tell you what happens in the long run, then they're just pushing an agenda. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

29 minutes ago, KORG said:

You know what increased demand causes? Increased supply. That means more jobs.

I forgot to address this part in my last reply. 

While it's true that increasing demand causes a higher quantity-supplied, if it's done through wage floor manipulation (or most other means really), at the end of the day (i.e. the economy is back in long term equilibrium) you're still left with the same amount of natural unemployment (i.e. when full employment is reached in a free market economy) since the gains in employment really are just covering the cost to employment incurred when wage floors increased.

The economy, though, would be generating more output (GDP). 

[Fingerella 3,170]

Welp there's always Onlyfans

[Economy 52,842]

1 hour ago, KORG said:

No it won't. Thats not how the economy works. They said the same about the wages in the UK.

In 2000 minimum wage was £3.60 per hour.

April 2021 will see minimum wage reach £8.91 per hour.

You know whats happened by people having more disposable income? They spend more, stimulating the economy because taxes are taken on more purchases. The wheels of finance are turning nicely.

You know what increased demand causes? Increased supply. That means more jobs.

Welcome to the 21st century, America.

Its hard to say based on individual results because theres other factors at play as well. My Province also raised minimum wage a significant amount in a short period of time and we did not see any bump... but we didnt see a decline either... it was kinda neutral

 

Prices did go up so it kinda felt like the middle class subsidizing the low incomes... overall consumption and GDP trends didnt chabge course almost at all. Consumption did not rise but it didnt fall.

 

I think what happened is the middle class lost a bit of purchasing power while the low income gained some...

 

It wasnt a collapse in employment lile conservatives fearmongered but at least in our case, it was not the increase ur talking about either

 

That being said i do think its a positive overall not only to lower poverty for those at the bottom but over the long term it does promote higher productivity (but as a result of more output per worker not necessairily more jobs in total)

[Economy 52,842]

40 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Capitalism is not viable and this is another indicator of that. 

ESPECIALLY in the upcoming era of mass automation.

You think a system where most jobs will be replaced by machines YET in which you need a job to survive is good?

It’s gonna crumble real quick.

Socialism would fix many issues like this because in socialism, you’re paid for the value you create, not the hours. And the workers own their workplace, so they decide their wages. They have an incentive to make their company thrive because unlike capitalism, the well being of the company will reflect on their wage.

I could go on and on but you guys should be looking into it. It’s crazy how much anti-socialism propaganda we’re fed when it’s the most logical system. The only ones gaining from keeping capitalism are the rich minority.

It could work IF competence if government gets better. The way things are not and have been i dont see a socialist system working

 

A socialist system will require more control and direct management... if the government doesnt know what its doing that would make things even worse

 

Personally i find saying one system is better than another or left is better than right etc is simplifying the issues. I think how a strategy its implemented and how well its handled is equally as important

 

A huge amount of resources can go to waste and impoverish a Nation if its not well planned. 

 

 

[Economy 52,842]

54 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

A lot of this is because people with 2 jobs will be able to just have 1, as their single-job wage increases. 

Only 5% of US labor force has more than 1 job tho. I dont know that this would be the massive factor tho it would certainly have some impact