geebeebee said:barefool said:Going from memory, Neumark/Waschel showed a 4% reduction in employment. While that's not catastrophic, it's not good. And I simply don't understand the argument that, as long as we're only going to harm the economy a small amount, that's a good thing. I think harming the economy is a bad thing. I think we should adopt policies that should help the economy instead of harming it, even by small amounts.But you're missing that the 96% that are still employed get possibly a 10% raise. And these are the people that will usually spend the money because they need it. That has no net positive effect on the economy?

If an individual determined the market rate for their services are worth $10 an hour... should they:

A. Talk to their boss and negotiate a wage increase.
B. Look for another job that will pay them for what they're worth.
C. Bitch to congress to get the minimum wage increased to $10, causing unemployment for the people newly priced out of the market.

If workers are truely worth $7.25 an hour, then they can ask their boss for a raise or go out in the job market and find a job paying $7.25 an hour. If they can't find a job paying $7.25 an hour, then the market determined they're not worth that price and that job will cease to exist at the end of this month. That individual doesn't need the government making it illegal to hire less productive workers to get compensated accurately for their labor.

The same laws of supply and demand apply equally to both prices and wages. Demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. Minimum wage raises the price, therefore the quantity demanded goes down.

There's no arguing reality.

AP: Minimum wage hike could threaten low earners' jobs

Jul 23, 2009

ATLANTA — A federal minimum wage increase that takes effect Friday could prolong the recession, some economists say, by forcing small businesses to lay off the same workers that the pay hike passed in better times was meant to help.

The increase to $7.25 means 70 cents more an hour for the lowest-paid workers in the 30 states that have lower minimums or no minimum wage. It also means higher costs for employers who feel they've already trimmed all their operating fat.

"How will they absorb the increase?" said Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University's Economic Forecasting Center. "They will either hire less people or they will do less business."

More than in any period before, businesses are likely to lay off employees and reduce hours, further fueling the economic slump in states seeing double-digit unemployment rates, fiscal conservatives and some economists say.

Minimum wage advocates counter the wage bump will keep more working poor afloat, and say more increases are needed to help stimulate consumer spending and strengthen businesses in the long run.

Incarnate said:Did the world end yet, or is it too soon?No, same as when the world didn't end during the 233 years when we didn't have UHC in the USA.