-->
@Athias
For someone that likes to repeat "Reading Comprehension is key" to then summarize my stance on hypothetical situations as "amounting to nothing" is, frankly, astonishing.
Have a nice day.
I spent the past 10 days going round and round with Christen and when we even got a modicum of concession or agreement, he disappears. At least he was arguing from premises he actually accepted.
A minimum wage that exactly equals the cost of living is necessarily insufficient because of the non-zero chance of emergency or extreme situations. If you have to miss work for any reason, you are automatically less than the cost of living.
Then where do we draw the line? How much higher does the minimum wage need to be so that people have extra money for emergencies? In other words, if the minimum wage was 17 dollars an hour because that's how much you needed to survive, then how many more pennies/nickels/dimes/quarters/dollars do we add to that so people have extra money for emergencies? Would the minimum wage have to be 17 dollars an hour for living costs, plus an additional 10 cents an hour for savings/emergencies, or 17 dollars for living costs plus 25 cents an hour for savings/emergencies? Exactly how much additional money per hour do we add onto the current minimum wage for savings and emergencies?
Even if the current minimum wage was not enough to survive on without government assistance, who does raising the minimum wage help though?
We have the employers, the people currently making minimum wage, the people making more than minimum wage, and people who have no job.Raising the minimum wage hurts employers who already pay their employees the current minimum wage since they are now forced to give up more of their money so that employees can make more money, or risk going out of business.
It doesn't help those who already make more than the minimum wage.
It doesn't help those who have no job to begin with, such as homeless people, and those looking for work experience; it would only make it harder for those people to get jobs since employers would have to pay them all this extra money to hire them, and decide it isn't worth it.
This leaves us with the last group of people who the minimum wage affects: those already making the current minimum wage.If the minimum wage gets raised, it will help them if employers are both willing and able to pay them that extra money, but hurt them if the employer is either unwilling or unable to pay them that extra money.
If we try a few of my other solutions, like cutting down on careless government spending so we have more money to help those earning minimum wage, it would help more people overall than raising the minimum wage would.
There are still people today that are homeless and cannot find work. There are still people today that could use the work experience and the few dollars. What's a minimum wage increase supposed to do for these people? The people who need the most help?
Employers are not likely going to want to hire these homeless people, especially for such a high wage.
Homelessness is a problem, especially for places like California and Seattle. How many more homeless people will it take for this to become "a significant problem"?
People are homeless for a variety of reasons many of which having absolutely nothing to do with money
those that involve things like unaffordable housing which increasing minimwage wage most certainly would help.
It isn't. Can we move on, then?We shouldn't have it if it's doing more harm than good.
It isn't.
the ecology does not charge humans for their existence
Humans have to give up one thing or another to maintain their existence though, whether it's money, time, or labor.
Ecologies still require maintenance, and in our society, you need labor (people to produce goods/services), time (to produce goods/services), and whatever you're willing to trade for those goods/services, which would in this case be money.
Sure the mother may not charge the baby for her milk, but eventually the baby will grow up and have to fend for itself, and it will need time, money, and/or labor to do so.
What I'm saying is, while the fish doesn't charge you to fish it, and while ecology doesn't charge the fish to live, different species still work together to maintain an ecosystem.
What that baby got for free (which is the milk), the mother had to take the time to work for.
The mother would have had to eat right, drink, sleep well, and take care of herself so she could produce that milk for the baby to begin with.
The sun gives off heat energy.
Plants take the time to turn that energy into food.
Water helps the plants grow.
Primary Consumers, Herbivores, and Omnivores take the time to locate those plants and eat them.
Secondary Consumers and Carnivores then work to hunt down and eat the Primary Consumers so they survive.All of the plants, Primary Consumers, and Secondary Consumers then reproduce to make up for whatever is lost.
There is also a limited supply of certain resources, so some species then have to compete with each other. Money is not involved in these cases, but time and effort still are.
I just thought of a solution that I believe the people who are both pro-minimum wage, and anti-minimum wage, would like.We will do what drafterman wants, which is to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs of living, but, we will also make it so that employees can sign a legal waiver (which can be renewable) to temporarily waive their right to be paid that minimum, and legally allow employers to pay them, specifically, an amount lower than the minimum wage if the employer chooses to do so. That way, employees can still be paid a living/survivable wage if they want/need the extra money, while we also ensure that nobody accidentally gets priced out of the market who still wants to keep their job.
We already have seen the effects in Seattle at only $15. The data is in. Fewer jobs. Fewer hours offered.
705 days later