Well, my first post is facetious, but I still don't get why rising the minimum wage would be a "bad" thing. Rising it from 5.15 (which comes as a laugable 10,712$ a year last time I checked) is good for the middle class and it would tie the minmum wage to the rate of the inflation too.
It might affect small businesses, but most of America's proletarians work for corporations that can afford an extra 1.60$
a min. wage is a binding price floor. which means that the price floor is set above the current min wage of labor. price floors DISTORT a free market. there's a reason why if you leave the market alone in most situations, it'll balance itself out, eventually reaching an equillibrium where the supply of labor equals its demand.
with a higher min. wage, the equillibrium is untainable because there's a min. wage employers can't go below. this causes a disproportionate amount of workers to labor suppliers and what politcians euphemestically label "surplus of labor"...aka unemployment. if i could draw a supply and demand graph illustrate this, i would.
dude, out of prodigious amount of topics that are debated by economists...this is not really one of them. the majority of them agree that price floors distort the market.
You probably know debating ain't my strenght, specially when it comes to economics. I offered you my pseudo-informed opinion and you answered with an elaborate speech.
The prop has been passed and now we have to sit back and see what happens. If you're right I'll buy you a Big Mac. If I'm right you'll buy me a steak. Deal?
I really don't care. I still have to pay money for goods. There are so many problems in the world for me to worry that the cost of, say, toilet paper will go up.
Another thing, $10,712/year is an explicit cost only picked up by Accountants.
If your implying that the only cost that results in a higher min wage is the wage itself, you're off track. There are implicit costs such as the COST OF THE SUM OF LOST JOBS in tucson.
You can't stray from normative statements with phrases like "America's proletarians" and "buorgisie mentality". educated voters tend to see directly through fluff.
"bourgeoisie" or "bourgeois" ...not that it matters.
I hate fluff very much. I'll rather have people go straight to the point, without all the bullshit. I use the terms "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie" because they're socioeconomic words that have entered my everyday lexicon. If these words bother you I'll stop using them around you.
And than you for correcting me. I didn't have time to look it up.
Reply
Reply
It might affect small businesses, but most of America's proletarians work for corporations that can afford an extra 1.60$
Reply
with a higher min. wage, the equillibrium is untainable because there's a min. wage employers can't go below. this causes a disproportionate amount of workers to labor suppliers and what politcians euphemestically label "surplus of labor"...aka unemployment. if i could draw a supply and demand graph illustrate this, i would.
dude, out of prodigious amount of topics that are debated by economists...this is not really one of them. the majority of them agree that price floors distort the market.
Reply
The prop has been passed and now we have to sit back and see what happens. If you're right I'll buy you a Big Mac. If I'm right you'll buy me a steak. Deal?
Reply
Higher labor wages mean less labor for businesses. if the price of a good goes up, are you willing to pay more or less of it, jorge?
Reply
Reply
If your implying that the only cost that results in a higher min wage is the wage itself, you're off track. There are implicit costs such as the COST OF THE SUM OF LOST JOBS in tucson.
You can't stray from normative statements with phrases like "America's proletarians" and "buorgisie mentality". educated voters tend to see directly through fluff.
"bourgeoisie" or "bourgeois" ...not that it matters.
Reply
And than you for correcting me. I didn't have time to look it up.
Reply
Leave a comment