Thats pretty much my point. These platitudes get exhausting. It seems nobody is really interested in helping poor people.
Wait so what happened to the factory worker being hurt because the fast food peon was making 15 dollars an hr? Nobody has made any platitudes, did you learn a new word?
I'm talking about programs that don't exist already and not specific instances but in a broader sense to deal with the economic squeeze facing many.
I think you are arguing that let's there be no min wages. Let the market decide. We don't need a "living wage" from the private sectors, but we should tax wages and profits (from everyone) and use that fund to maintain a "basic living standard" for everyone that chooses to work. And you do this because of inflation. Essentially, let the market do whatever and have the gov step in and maintain societal needs to control inflation. I don't want the gov to step in unless it's absolutely necessary and/or if it's more efficient in the hand of the gov. Regulation on companies to not pollute causes some inflation. The gov can steps in to clean up and even provide assistance to those that suffer from pollution. Ignoring the fairness principle (why would all taxpayers be responsible for polluters), this would be a very inefficient and costly way to maintain a "livable clean environment" for all. We know that the gov is slow at innovating and finding optimal solutions. I think we can see that the overall costs of gov programs are greater than the cost of inflation. The overhead and gov inefficiency to fund and maintain a "basic standard of living" would be relatively high. Yes, we should have safety net, but pushing more onto the gov would overall cost more due to inefficiency and stagnation costs inherent to gov solution. The private sectors, with competition and desire for higher profit, will find creative solutions to offset higher labor costs. Inflation will happen, but I doubt it's much. I read that for every 10% increase in min wage hike, a big mac (the famous inflationary index) costs 0.36% more. Assuming linear, a doubling of wages from ~$7 to $15 would increase a big mac by 3.6%, or from $4 to $4.14. That doesn't seem too bad to me. Whatever it is, we know that for every $1 increase in wages, it won't cost an additional $1 increase in consumer price - the private sector will offset it elsewhere to maintain customers, and yes, even in lower bonuses for executives. But we also know that for every $1 shortfall of a living wage, it would cost more than $1 in additional taxes and/or debt due to gov overhead and inefficiencies of a "livable basic standard" for all workers. Besides the above, I think you know it's going to be nearly impossible to raise taxes to fund new programs or to beef up existing programs to support a "basic living standard" for all workers. The pressure has been to cut social programs and to reduce debt, and absolutely not raise taxes.
For everyone that votes against raising the minimum wage, those representatives better have a damn good explanation for what THEY ARE GOING TO DO to bring down the cost of living. The reality is yes, some a$$hole companies will fire people because the government is making them increase their minimum wage. However, those people working the minimum wage are also being subsidized by YOU THE TAXPAYER. So if Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin want to deny the raising of the minimum wage, they are inviting holy hell with the cost to the tax payers who would rather see their money go to infrastructure.
The cost of housing and goods will increase. The relative spending value will go down. The minimum wage needs to be addressed. There are too many Americans working that are still in poverty. However it is tricky as there are consequences. Also does raising the minimum wage really address the stark income inequality between the super rich and the American worker or does it just harm the middle class while helping the poor working class? Inflation is a real concern when coupled with the massive tax cuts for the super rich passed by Trump and the huge deficit from all of the COVID bills and spending.
Do we know by how much and which areas is impacted? Labors for building homes is generally much higher than $15/hr already, so that shouldn't be impacted. Shifting "social costs" to private sectors can also reduce middle class tax burden - I don't know by how much, but just pointing out the equation isn't one sided.
The short answer is no we don’t, all we can do is make educated guesses but the reality is there are so many factors that it is hard to know. I support increasing the minimum wage to $15.00. I am simply saying there are consequences.
Environmental regulations are not inflationary and in fact may do the opposite. Just because something has a cost to it doesn't make it inflationary. Protecting the environment lowers diseases and medical costs for instances - resulting in lower insurance premiums. So in reality, it may actually fight inflation even if the cost of the regulation is passed on to the consumer. In this case it is shifting the cost from your insurance premium to consumption. Yes, I am saying let the markets decide wages but the gov't should provide anyone who works at least x hours a baseline of housing, education, and health care.
Of course environmental regulation increases prices, but it has all the benefits you mentioned. Raising min wages can also reduce addiction to drugs and alcohol, crimes, stress, health care cost, increase parental time, education for poor kids, and so on.. and yes, even insurance premium. In fact, perhaps happier employee is more productive and that drive prices down instead of up. I mean, if it doesn't have those benefits, why do we even care that it should be done (and not how it gets done)? In both cases, there is inflationary pressure and there are benefits. I'm pointing out that due to gov overhead and ineff cost, the market is the better place to handle the majority of the requirements and the gov should only get involved when necessary (safety net) or if the gov can actually beat the market in cost (in market with no competition or where it's so "corrupted" that price is distorted higher).
Except raising the minimum wage does not accomplish that for more than a very short period of time as prices simply go up and $15/hr quickly becomes the new $7.5/hr I am all for people being able to have a life, I just disagree on the means to accomplish that.
$15/hr “quickly becomes” the new $7.25/hr without any min wage hike. We avg 2% inflation per year for the past ~20 years. It’s is a pretty natural constant with a growing economy. If we are so concern about inflation and believe that wage hike is the primary driver, should we not freeze wages for all? Freeze ssc payout? Min wage hike should be indexed to inflation just like nearly everything.
Or like I said, do away with the minimum wage all together and instead create a system where people have universal healthcare, access to affordable housing, and free education.
So you are against this fed min wage hike because you prefer an ideal that has zero chance of happening? Perfection is the enemy of progress. Personally I prefer UBI over UBS but neither of that is happening.
It should be a state by state decision. As many others have stated: $15 in NY and $15 in Mississippi are not the same thing.
