I thought lucrum made and excellent argument very efficiently. It seems like Mercor picked up on it immediately. its another form of the slippery slope argument. Reductio ad absurdum. used to point out flaws in others arguments. When used properly is a powerful technique. it seems to have tied you up pretty good. Do you think you can just pick that magical point where everything is perfectly balanced? Or is this just a case of govt stepping in to drive more people to the unemployment rolls. how do you know. Your belief seems to run counter to two pillars of economics. a. there is no free lunch b. marginal this equals marginal that
Lucrum, I really shouldn't have to explain this, but at the risk of wasting my time I'll attempt it. It is very simple. The economy does not just consist of only the 1 %, or the 53%. The 1% would not exist without the other 99%. A vibrant economy requires that wages reflect productivity as closely as possible. The current minimum wage is out of whack with the productivity of minimum wage workers. When this happens people would rather stay home on the public dole than work. The marginal difference in reward for working does not make it worth working. So welfare roles are increased and a greater fraction of your taxes goes to welfare, and in effect, to subsidize the difference between the minimum wage and a minimum living wage. You are working part of every day to subsidize profits of minimum wage employers and to encourage people to stay home and watch MSNBC instead of working. To correct this mess, the minimum wage must go up to reflect and become in balance with productivity. In an ideal world filled with perfect people and perfect employers, employers would spontaneously raise their wages to reflect worker productivity. But this is not an ideal world filled with perfect employers and perfect people. If you are tired of subsidizing Walmart then advocate for a raise in the minimum wage somewhere near the $10.10/hr mark. It is an inexact science, so if that is too low we can correct it, by further raises. If it is too high, we can let inflation over time correct it. We will know if it is about right if the welfare roles decline and the prices at minimum wage employers in competitive markets barely budge. That's the goal.
Try harder, thinking takes practice and your a 500# obese man when it comes to thinking. You might need to start with simple puzzles and math problems before you try jumping to understanding complicated ideas, not that understanding this is that complicated. There are a few reasons I won't explain this to you, one is your too biased to grasp an idea that conflicts with your religion and second is your a dumbass and it's entertaining seeing you dumbfounded and third is you are a fucking jerk and I don't mind seeing you stay ignorant.
Man, that is as racist as it gets! And California or some other libtard state should make the minimum wage really livable, like $50 an hour. They'd all be rich. LMAO.
So according to you raising the min wage reduces welfare roles. Hows that been working for ya pie hole? You gotta chart or something to back it up?
1969-1970. But you are missing the larger point. No one should be looking at these jobs as permanent. An hour of flipping burgers has a market value. The govt should not be saying what that value is. its up to the markets. If you can't support yourself at McDonalds, then move on to something better. If this was happening under a Republican administration, I'm sure you would singing a different tune.
piezoe says, "that's NOT the way it works". Well, that's the way it is SUPPOSED to work.... if you want a vibrant economy. It's also the way it formerly worked when America was the envy of the world. The parasite class only knows, "I want".... not recognizing they deserve nothing more than what they earn for themselves. Unfortunately, scumbag politicos pander to the undeserved wants of the parasite class in exchange for their vote. And sadly, the parasite class only clamors for more. In case anyone wonders... my first job was as a janitor at minimum wage. I did that job for a while because I wanted to eat regular and have a roof over my head... not much of one, but kept the rain out. All along, however, I thought, "I want more than this. I need to do something different/better as soon as I can." That WAS the "American way". (Odumbo wants America to be like the former Soviet Union before its collapse. If you're young enough, get out of America while you can.)
Naturally I do. Take a look at the chart that I gave a link to. Then compare the welfare roles in 2012 with those in 1968!
I don't see anything on that graph that supports your assertion that a higher min wage reduces welfare roles. Or that the current minimum wage is out of line with the employee's productivity. In fact I don't see welfare roles or productivity even mentioned on that graph.