I had a different experience. I made roughly $50k and both my wife and I were in school. Once I started at UHCL (not even close to the most expensive institution), I never got anything from Pell and my wife didn't get Pell throughout her time at nursing school (after she got her prereqs done at San Jac). Certainly a problem, but one which would be moot if tuition and fees were covered. As observed above, UHCL isn't exactly an exorbitantly expensive institution. As we would if STEM degrees as well as technical and vocational training were covered for everyone. Agreed, but we also need to give people willing to work for it a path to a more prosperous career that doesn't lead them to debt that could be more than they pay for a home. I agree that there are bigger problems, but the rising cost of college and the debt incurred by students isn't exactly minuscule. If those students who now have debt were instead spending that money in the economy, the entire country would be doing better, not just the institutions collecting on the debt.
Do you really think that 8 months of data is enough to come to a conclusion on a $1.50 minimum wage hike? It's pretty obvious from the chart in that link that Seattle's unemployment rate rises during summer months and then bounces back towards the end of each year and you can already see that trend taking shape again. It will be much more interesting to look at it later this year IMO.
$1.50 is dishonest as businesses can and do make decisions on impending minimum wage hikes (they don't plan for just 1 month into the future). 8 months is not enough data though and I will re-evaluate with more.
All good points. So lets have a "thought" experiment. What happens if all 10+ million immigrants are deported? What I am arguing is that supply of labor will be decreased by (Percent Working-Age Illegals)*10,000,000. All I'm saying, is what I learned in my economics courses (i.e. Advanced Macroeconomics, International Monetary Economics) is that the price of a good or service is inversely proportional to the supply of that good or service. Meanwhile, the two individuals claiming "degrees" of separation over me in economics have yet to present a single study/case/etc of why this fundamental concept goes out the door when it comes to labor. Furthermore, illegal immigrants largely work low-income jobs. Minimum-wage jobs are low-income jobs. Therefore, reducing the size of the low-income labor force will have an inversely proportional effect on wages. Yes. I'm not dealing with his b.s. He needs to calm down in order to make coherent unsegmented argument. Maybe it's the caffeine. MTA Database Fundamentals 2015.
First off, that was never your question, your question was how do you justify sending illegals back and raise the minimum wage. The answer to that is a moral answer, not an economic one. That aside, your premise is why does less illegals not drive up the cost of labor. Answer: There is an over supply of labor, hence why we have an unemployment rate. A reduction in the labor force has no effect on demand for labor until the over supply is completely diminished and employers cannot find labor. This is a partial reason why your premise is false. A reduction in illegal workers does not under supply the labor market. The other reason your premise is false is that low income and minimum wage are two very different things. The minimum wage market and the illegal worker market are two separate models. Illegals do not work at minimum wage jobs, like cashiers at grocery stores, retail salesman, etc, hence their presence or absence has no effect on the supply and demand of labor. Illegals work in non payroll situations, like sweatshops, and other cash based businesses like lawn care, and sub contract situations. These are unaffected by minimum wage laws because the employer has no interest in the laws. The absence / presence of illegals will have an effect here and likely only abolish business that cannot operate without the use of slave wage labor.
Ironic thing is that this would benefit Middle America and the red states because a lot of them deaf and dumb silent majority are beyond hope for re-skilling. A higher imposed bottom that they grudgingly dwell under would make them less angry at the coloreds. Too bad these simple minded economic wizards can't see things beyond a zero sum game.
A higher bottom is still the bottom and raising that bottom only means that people who were once higher and higher above that bottom are now on the bottom. You don't make anyone's life better in the long run by raising the minimum wage and honestly you hurt some people who were once above minimum wage by decreasing their purchasing power. Of course, that's probably too complex a notion for some to grasp.
Yes you do. 1.) The tax payer who no longer has to pay for welfare esque level benefits. 2.) The minimum wage worker who can now purchase more goods and services. 3.) The businesses that can now sell more goods and services because demand has gone up. Not really, some items which relied on cheap labor will go up, but the consumer will adjust and either buy less or look for alternatives. It also rewards well run business that don't have to leverage slave wage labor to produce a product. This is a market correction which will eliminate businesses that should not work. As you have clearly demonstrated, this one is way out of your league.
Revolution because all the money from those robots will go to the ones who own those robots, the wealth from productivity increases isn't going to the American worker, they are going to the rich who get richer. Eventually the thing just collapses as there won't be enough consumerism to support the needs of companies to show increasing profits.
How's the $15 minimum wage doing for Seattle? Are the lower class doing much better than before? Can they afford more housing, food, health care,etc? How about the middle class?
You are just displaying your complete and fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. It's okay, i don't really expect many with your political leanings to understand things like that. You could make the minimum wage $250 an hour and there would still be a need for welfare-esque level benefits for people on the bottom because you don't increase purchasing power by raising the minimum wage. Workers making the minimum have the exact same purchasing power.....the minimum. Due to that, you don't increase demand. People like you who simply don't understand what raising the minimum wage really does is why some politicians successfully purchase votes via minimum wage increases. It doesn't really help anyone, and actually hurts a lot of people, but dumb people will vote for it.
You are as ignorant as you are predictable with your little barbs attached to every post. I guess this is the little mechanism you have developed to cope with constantly being put in your place. Hilariously incorrect, which is par for the course for you. The price of a product is not 1:1 dependant on labor. Labor is only a small portion of what most products costs, thus costs likely are to increase, but not as much as the purchasing power, hence a net benefit. Those cost increases are counter acted by the increased demand due to more liquid money. You will learn about these things in when you get to the later years of high school, and in college. Sorry Bobbers, this is just another one of those things you know very little about. You can parade around with your arrogance, but it doesn't change anything.
I hope this happens, the people who it would affect deserve and need a break from this horrific lifestyle. I wish I could see something like this happening globally.
SMH, I don't know why I bother with some. They way they view economics, poverty would be solved if only the minimum wage was 100 bucks an hour because then everyone working 40 hours a week would make over 200K!!!!! Short sighted and childish honestly.
I don't know how you guys take the time to break out the quotes. I'll assume the difference is we had 2 children (3 now going into the last semester for her BSN, but also with more income, so we'll see if we still qualify). Our AGI was $57,093 for 2015, and affording her tuition wouldn't be a problem if we have to pay out of pocket. I agree with the vocational training, though I think it should be part of High School, even if it is through joint enrollment with a technical college.
That's not really all that extreme, in just 70 something years the minimum wage has gone from $0.25 an hour to $7.25 an hour. If we keep going then it'll be $100 an hour before too long. That said, given that you fundamentally don't understand what you are talking about, it's not like you can have a competent take on anything related to it. It's not your fault.
Yup, one day we will blink and minimum wage will all of a sudden be $100 per hour. On that day, we will look back and say man, we really should have listened to Bobby, he had it right. Or, we could just peg minimum wage to inflation and be done with it. I almost feel sorry for you. You have so many just blatantly stupid opinions, when people put you in your place you have nothing left and the only thing you know how to do is to fall back on logical fallacies. This is embarrassing Bobby.
