Truthful answer - it doesn’t matter. All that matters is The Feels.
Reality: Your position’s productive value is $1/hour? You won’t have that job if the least you can be paid is $2/hour.
The Feels: Your position’s productive value is $1/hour? Mandating that you be paid $2/hour will mean that you get paid $2/hour*.
*(The Feels don’t talk about raising the minimum wage to $28/hour, because that would be absurd and obviously result in jobs being cut. They’re not real smart.)
I know your take on it - I’m genuinely curious if Zeppy baby has even tried to break his cycle of confirmation bias…I doubt it, I’m sure I’ll hear something about all of those sites and links are shills for the Koch brothers…
If I may, the reality of the situation is that while ‘some’ people will be priced out of ‘some’ jobs, it has essentially no impact on the overall market and the overall candidate’s ability to find employment.
At work, where we clear 50k job positions a month across all of our clients (many of whom are temp roles), we’re struggling to find warm bodies in almost all areas of the country. Unemployment is getting low enough that finding even low skilled workers is difficult, not to mention the nightmare of finding high skill in some areas.
@Zeppelin795 is so ignorant that I would guess he believes merely printing more currency would allow for increasing the minimum wage. It’s not about confirmation bias, it’s about ignorance. He doesn’t understand the function of money. He doesn’t understand scarcity.
maybe not … can you provide source or some logical explanation aside from simply stating it as if I’m supposed to take your word for it lol
Sure … this doesn’t address my question to Zeppy, though.
FTR any private company can do whatever the hell they want in terms of what they consider “minimum wage” … they’re the ones who bare the costs (assuming they operate in a competitive market with relatively low barriers to entry…) - this guy wants government to impose a price floor on labor - that WILL create a labor surplus (i.e. more people looking for work than there are currently jobs) or job shortage - however you want to look at it, it’s the same thing.
Yes. Only way to remain intellectually rigorous … maybe not as regularly as I should, but I do, yes.
So that’s a no then. Dude, I’m not answering your fucking question if you don’t exercise the same courtesy. I guess shame on me for thinking you would answer - silly to even try to engage with you on a serious level. Next time I’ll just make fun of you b/c it’s much more entertaining and less frustrating…
So, then why the qualifier “In reality” … you know it’s an actual phenomenon
Fair. How about the unemployment rate for the group we’re discussing (low skilled workers)? Has there been a change in labor force participation rate? How about among low skilled workers?
Dude, you can fart and burp at the same time and it’ll be a more informed, coherent response than Zep … at least you address the question … he just asks an unrelated question to try to throw us off his scent…
I’m more in the camp you’re talking about, for the most part - we won’t really see MUCH impact at the macro level … mainly due to proportionality, I’d think.
Also, I was thinking about this on the way to work, I think it’s best to make clear that I don’t care if all private businesses decide to make their minimum wage $15/hr or w/e - I don’t think it ought to be imposed by government or societal pressures. There are pros and cons to it - the pros being those who benefit benefit. The cons is it will raise barriers to entry and price people out of the labor market - or at the very best decrease the amount of available jobs for these entry level, low skilled workers.
I would take it a step further to say we don’t see it at all at the macro level. At least I’ve never heard of it actually existing in the wild at the macro level. I could be out of date
Are societal pressures not the market (ie the workforce) making said demands?
So far at a micro level you’d have to hunt to find this, with greatest chance of success being focusing on a very specific industry with an assumption that the worker cannot leave it, and at a macro level best of luck.
Bet all you care about are profitz. Profitz above all else. Murica.
I’d bet we could detect it, but the signal is weak so to speak
I’d say a subsection of society; I’m more referencing those without any skin in the game … i.e. assholes who don’t work at Amazon yelling that they don’t pay their workers enough. Price signals are a far more efficient means of communicating the need for scarce resources than a mob of ignorant fools with no skin in the game…
That’s not to say there aren’t some in the mob who may understand it and are approaching the problem from a different perspective than I am - however I’d think they’re few and far between and are drowned out by the NPCs of it all (my new favorite meme btw … hilarious).
I’d be open to taking a look at it occurring in the macro sense for sure. Personally I’m more interested in how the market handles the new minimum wages once the economy takes a dip
How do you price signal a company like Amazon? The vast majority of their prices are actually someone else’s prices. We also don’t really have a comparable company to Amazon for consumers to swap to.
Imo the mob IS them approaching the problem from a different perspective. The masses finally figured out enough bad PR will bend most companies to the publics will. Seems like the ultimate free market approach to me
This is exactly your problem. I have NEVER said stem cells are overall more detrimental. They show A LOT of promise, but they haven’t been researched nearly enough to be the go-to treatment option anywhere. You have anecdotal evidence, self-reported success on the interwebs and by the people prescribing the treatment who have a monetary incentive to show it works.
You get mad at the FDA while ignoring the glaring conflict of interest here. Or, maybe I’m wrong. Can you point me to the page on the Stem Cells website that shares the failures of their treatment?
You’re using that word Incorrect, again. It is a “consideration” on “the extent to which U.S. fast-food businesses could adjust to an increase in the federal minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour without having to resort to reducing their workforce.”
It’s not a study. It’s a hypothesis.
Lolz, $22.50 an hour, absurd.
Bro, he’s Jesus. He answers questions with questions because he’s the anointed one.