Try eliminating it and see if there is any evidence it increases employment (as long as we are just trying things with no evidence.)
I mean, that's what I mean. Companies can't make profits if people don't have money. So there is an incentive for an economy to want the population to have enough money to spend before it gets to a tipping point of shrinking from shrinking profits, which lead to cost cutting, which leads to poorer people, which leads to shrinking profits... Even 100% employment doesn't mean anything on its own. You could have 100% employment, but if everybody isn't getting paid enough to acquire living commodities AND save, there's stagnation. What's the point of high employment if nobody's making any money? At least peg the wage to a local commodity basket. Also, it's not a debate without evidence, although I'm sure you have your own conflicting sources. http://www.nelp.org/publication/rai...ion-minimum-wage-increases-employment-levels/ Regardless of the opinion on whether the min wage should be higher or lower, it should at least hopefully be clear to all that a higher minimum wage is not directly inverse to broad employment across an economy, since more money in the pockets of common workers should encourage consumption and spending and offset higher costs.
100% employment means wages are going up. Min wage would become meaningless. They couldn't raise it fast enough.
"It may survive, but it certainly won't "solve everything." Nevertheless, I appreciate your attempt at humor.
Always interested in your posts, though I find myself seldom in agreement with them. This most recent post is an exception however, in that I find myself approximately in 50% agreement. I want to sleep on it. and will perhaps later respond in some detail. The idea of encouraging production and investment is behind supply-side economics, with the intention that the additional employment that results will furnish demand. I'm not convinced that Robots will be able to furnish the hoped for demand however. As I said, I want to sleep on this and give these thoughts further contemplation.
I don't think this thinking is taking into account the complete paradigm shift that globalization and automation will have on a capitalistic economy. Yes, what you're saying, that 100% employment implies that laborers are in demand and wages need to rise competitively, is tradition. However, automation and a growing population means that labor supply will grow exponentially while labor demand will fall exponentially. The free market value of labor will thusly fall thru the floor as jobs become obsolete. Whatever the answer, laissez faire is not it.
If jobs become obsolete we won't really need a minimum wage will we? They could make it 5k/hr but it wouldn't make life more affordable to a displaced worker. So just what problem are you trying to solve with a minimum wage?
I mean, you know I am a UBI proponent. Obviously it's something that would need easing into, but I view strong labor and high minimum wages beneficial to keep the bottom line afloat until we reach such a tipping point. Basically, it's all a means to an end of keeping money from stagnating at the top and finding ways to keep it going back down (so it can go back up), whether that's from higher wages for the fewer and fewer jobs that exist, or a UBI. Either of them put upward pressure on wages.
It is somewhat amusing that many of the OECD Better Life Index top 10 countries (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/) would be considered socialist by US standards. Capitalism is the ideal system for trade. But beyond that -- I don't know.