But those are not things that should be done using economic methods by entities like central banks. These are deep sociological issues and educational issues that are entrenched in every society and every country. In countries where there is not a lot of different races, the same divide still exists. In the United States, it just happens to coincide more heavily with racial characteristics so people are coloring the issues (pun intended) while ignoring the underlying problems and that is not going to solve anything.
I haven't actually made that assumption, but let's assume it. This is a far more complex issue than meets the eye. I am only addressing aggregate factors here. One is the aggregate rise in prices due to an increase in the cost of labor at the low margin. Another factor is an aggregate increase in household expenditures due to higher wages. Another factor has to do with what the reduction in subsidies converts to. Prices will rise of course, but the rise will be far less than that predicted using faulty arithmetic. You are a numbers person, so you won't make those mistakes. As a starting point, why not do a simple calculation yourself and see what you come up with.. Look at what fraction of your total costs are due to labor at the low wage margin. Than calculate what your prices would have have to rise to if you gave a certain percent raise to your lowest paid hourly workers holding profits constant. That would be a start. I don't know what kind of business you are in, so this may not apply to your business. You may not have any workers paid below the true cost of labor. (There is no general agreement on what should be included in that cost, however the low bound is identical to the official poverty level.) If you have anyone working under that level you can be certain that they are being subsidized. I am leaving unaddressed, at least for the moment, the philosophical question of whether any private sector business in a capitalist economy should expect government subsidies for either the purpose of maximizing profits or allowing it to operate profitably without paying its workers a living wage.
This makes no sense to me. What you are advocating is paying a wage that no one can live on rather than automate to reduce the drudgery of anyone having to do a mind stultifying repetitive task. We should be automating these mindless tasks, wherever and whenever possible. There is so, so much that needs to be done that takes a living breathing human with human emotions and human intellect to accomplish that we will never, ever run out of worthwhile things for people to do. Open your mind.
You need to ensure that people have some morals and dont keep making the same irresponsible decisions time and time again.
Bunch of crap from the minimum wage advocates. Free market is good and let the market decide. If you pay the workers very low, nobody will want to work, so naturally you have to increase the pay. Vice versa. At some point it will reach an equilibrium by itself. Let the market decide and not the government/politicians.
Is it because AI took the jobs away? Piezoe is right, open your mind. Lol. AI will take jobs and should also create some.
W Why do liberals always think giving the government control over more is the key to solving problems? You're Cuban which I would think would make you more prone to be smaller government given Cuba's history of its government forcing its will on people and businesses. I do love how liberals always seem to pass the buck on it though. I think this should be done, I just don't exactly know the best way to make it happen, but as long as I get to continue to maintain my current standard of living, and get to give a little to charity then I am an awesome person and can dictate how things should be forced on others (as long as I get to continue in my current standard of living that is). We could kind of model our government and system after Venezuela or Cuba or the USSR. Do you think government forcing businesses to have a minimum wage is the correct answer? Maybe government should own the businesses and take the private aspect completely out of it like Cuba did. Let's create this perfect liberal utopia where everyone has the same amount, no person makes more than the next person.
Weren't you bitching about social media companies being monopolistic with information in another thread? Isn't that a veiled dog whistle for government to intervene & break them up? Do you only call for government intervention when it fits your politics?
Because they have a monopoly on speech. Social media is the modern day town square. Studies show that Google can sway an entire election by slanting which news its userbase sees in searches. You liberals want the government to have a monopoly over all business. You want the government to force its will on all business. Why don't you liberals lead the charge and give all of your money to poor people and be equal to them? Oh that's right. You only want to virtue signal with a bit of charity and bitching about how everyone else should be doing, as long as you get to maintain your current standard of living while tossing a bit of change to charity and telling everyone "Look how good of a person I am! I take care of minorities, give to charity, and help yell about how our government needs to force everyone else to do more for poor people and minorities."