• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would raising the minimum wage actually create more jobs?

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Actually Create New Jobs: Study

The idea behind it seems to be that if you put more wealth in the hands of the young/poor, they will spend that money and create more money flow in the economy, thereby raising local demand and employment. The wealthiest among us sit on money instead of spending it, and they are very good at making asset bubbles and avoiding taxes.
 
Last edited:
We are currently debating the same here in our country.

Most economists and social scientists agree that it would not combat poverty, but merely increase the spending power of the middle class and some parts of the poor population.

It would also throw some parts of the middle class into poverty since there would be an increase in tax and they would lose claims to some social security benefits.

Combating poverty effectively would be to reform the public inferstructure of poverty struck comunities.
 
Anomalism said:
$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Actually Create New Jobs: Study

The idea behind it seems to be that if you put more wealth in the hands of the young/poor, they will spend that money and create more money flow in the economy, thereby raising local demand and employment. The wealthiest among us sit on money instead of spending it. They are very good at making asset bubbles and avoiding taxes.
Click to expand...

How does the bolded nonsense help your argument? It has nothing to do with the MW level. I suspect it is more class warfare babble to imply that if your are not for gov't mandates to reward the lowest skilled 3% of the US workforce for doing nothing different at all then you must be for the rich and greedy "other side".
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
How does the bolded nonsense help your argument? It has nothing to do with the MW level. I suspect it is more class warfare babble to imply that if your are not for gov't mandates to reward the lowest skilled 3% of the US workforce for doing nothing different at all then you must be for the rich and greedy'"other side".
Click to expand...

What you bolded is relevant because the 1% hoards so much wealth and avoids so much taxes that it is actually hurting the economy. Some of that money and spending power being in the hands of people that actually need to buy things will be beneficial to the economy.
 
Anomalism said:
What you bolded is relevant because the 1% hoards so much wealth and avoids so much taxes that it is actually hurting the economy. Some of that money and spending power being in the hands of people that actually need to buy things will be beneficial to the economy.
Click to expand...

Then you should state that your main goal is your intent to boost the economy by raising the spending power of the middle class.

And not to combat poverty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How does the bolded nonsense help your argument? It has nothing to do with the MW level. I suspect it is more class warfare babble to imply that if your are not for gov't mandates to reward the lowest skilled 3% of the US workforce for doing nothing different at all then you must be for the rich and greedy'"other side".
Click to expand...

None of the OP makes any sense. Minimum wages are always absorbed through either increased prices or lowered headcount. There has never been a big surge in employment ever attributed to raising the minimum wage, let a lone a pattern of proof that this happens. And if you think about what sorts of jobs the minimum wage worker does, you realize that most of it is in the fast food industry - a sector favored by none else but.... the poor. Raise the prices of the fast food and any imagined gains in the money of poor people being spread around evaporates because it's absorbed in higher fast food prices. I think we need to increase minimum wage simply because it's fallen behind the inflation curve. It's time. And that's the reason. To try to argue that it will create jobs is silly.
 
The German said:
Then you should state that your main goal is your intent to boost the economy by raising the spending power of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Where did I imply anything to the contrary?
 
Anomalism said:
What you bolded is relevant because the 1% hoards so much wealth and avoids so much taxes that it is actually hurting the economy. Some of that money and spending power being in the hands of people that actually need to buy things will be beneficial to the economy.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you are arguing that the snake eating it's own tail will make it fat and healthy. Increasing minimum wage doesn't actually "take money from the rich and give it to the poor". It merely causes adjustments on other things. Profits have to remain intact or there's no point doing business, so increased costs get managed in other ways like increased prices, reduced quality (lower buying costs), requiring more efficiency from employees (4 doing what 5 used to do), cuts in benefits, etc.
 
Anomalism said:
What you bolded is relevant because the 1% hoards so much wealth and avoids so much taxes that it is actually hurting the economy. Some of that money and spending power being in the hands of people that actually need to buy things will be beneficial to the economy.
Click to expand...

What? Your OWS, I mean EPI, babble does not, in any way, show that the 1% now employ the alleged 27.8 million workers that would get this gov't mandated pay raise. Is it your hope that a higher MW would somehow force the 1% to spend their "hoarded" money?
 
Anomalism said:
$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Actually Create New Jobs: Study

The idea behind it seems to be that if you put more wealth in the hands of the young/poor, they will spend that money and create more money flow in the economy, thereby raising local demand and employment. The wealthiest among us sit on money instead of spending it, and they are very good at making asset bubbles and avoiding taxes.
Click to expand...

How do you get the wealthy to hire more of these people at $10.10 an hour? That is how you grow the economy. Get the money circulating from the wealthy to the poor. If they aren't hiring people or using them productively, the increase of wages effects the lower and middle class. Because they will not be hired in the case of the lower class and the middle class will have to pay for increased wages in the goods they buy which translates into more taxes.
 
The German said:
In your initial statement you wrote:


I interpreted this as a proposal to decrease poverty. Was I mistaken?
Click to expand...

I asked a question in the title and linked an article that brought up what seemed like interesting points. I made a short synopsis of what I believe the article seemed to be implying in my OP. I have no idea if it will actually decrease poverty, but the part about helping the economy thrive through increased spending power for the poor seems to make a lot of sense.
 
Anomalism said:
I asked a question in the title and linked an article that brought up what seemed like interesting points. I made a short synopsis of what I believe the article seemed to be implying in my OP. I have no idea if it will actually decrease poverty, but the part about helping the economy thrive through increased spending power for the poor seems to make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I appologise, I misread or misinterpreted your initial arguments and thought you proposed a higher minimum wage for the main purpose of decreasing poverty.
 
Papa bull said:
None of the OP makes any sense. Minimum wages are always absorbed through either increased prices or lowered headcount. There has never been a big surge in employment ever attributed to raising the minimum wage, let a lone a pattern of proof that this happens. And if you think about what sorts of jobs the minimum wage worker does, you realize that most of it is in the fast food industry - a sector favored by none else but.... the poor. Raise the prices of the fast food and any imagined gains in the money of poor people being spread around evaporates because it's absorbed in higher fast food prices. I think we need to increase minimum wage simply because it's fallen behind the inflation curve. It's time. And that's the reason. To try to argue that it will create jobs is silly.
Click to expand...

That argument requires changing the official gov't line that all of the borrowing and printing has not caused inflation. At a time when the gov't is inventing all sorts of justification to not raise, via COLA, SS, military/civilian pension and social program benefits, due to inflation, it is hard to sell that idea. ;)
 
Papa bull said:
None of the OP makes any sense. Minimum wages are always absorbed through either increased prices or lowered headcount. There has never been a big surge in employment ever attributed to raising the minimum wage, let a lone a pattern of proof that this happens. And if you think about what sorts of jobs the minimum wage worker does, you realize that most of it is in the fast food industry - a sector favored by none else but.... the poor. Raise the prices of the fast food and any imagined gains in the money of poor people being spread around evaporates because it's absorbed in higher fast food prices. I think we need to increase minimum wage simply because it's fallen behind the inflation curve. It's time. And that's the reason. To try to argue that it will create jobs is silly.
Click to expand...

1. No they arn't, prices might rise but not over minimum wage, what will be hit is profit, also not lower headcount either, no Company hires more than they need no matter hwat the price.
2. No there is not a big surge attributed to raising the minimum wage, because it's over time and compound and it leads to an overall Healthy economy, it's not just one thing.
3. I'ts not just fast Food, it's stores, Warehouses, factories, shops, and so on .... also.

The inflation thing has been debunked over and over and over again.

1. Poor People won't spend all their extra Money on groceries.
2. They'll save some of it.
3. Competition will make sure prices don't raise too much.
4. You're forgetting executive pay and profit.
5. Poor People might spend Money on non essencials .... thus making a larger market and employment available for others (if they have a few extra bucks to go to the Movies that's making more jobs).
 
Anomalism said:
I asked a question in the title and linked an article that brought up what seemed like interesting points. I made a short synopsis of what I believe the article seemed to be implying in my OP. I have no idea if it will actually decrease poverty, but the part about helping the economy thrive through increased spending power for the poor seems to make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Do the EPI math. Adding $2.85/hour to 27.8 million (full time) jobs is $1.648 billion, then divide that by the alleged 85,000 new jobs created - that is $1.4 million of added labor costs to create each new job.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. No they arn't, prices might rise but not over minimum wage, what will be hit is profit, also not lower headcount either, no Company hires more than they need no matter hwat the price.
2. No there is not a big surge attributed to raising the minimum wage, because it's over time and compound and it leads to an overall Healthy economy, it's not just one thing.
3. I'ts not just fast Food, it's stores, Warehouses, factories, shops, and so on .... also.

The inflation thing has been debunked over and over and over again.

1. Poor People won't spend all their extra Money on groceries.
2. They'll save some of it.
3. Competition will make sure prices don't raise too much.
4. You're forgetting executive pay and profit.
5. Poor People might spend Money on non essencials .... thus making a larger market and employment available for others (if they have a few extra bucks to go to the Movies that's making more jobs).
Click to expand...

The "inflation thing" has been debated but it certainly hasn't been debunked. When costs go up, prices end up going up and there's no if's and's or but's about it. It isn't overnight but it absolutely happens. But that's irrelevant because the OP's argument is that increasing minimum wage means there will be more jobs and there's absolutely no proof that this has EVER been the case. I don't care if minimum wage gets raised. I've already stated that it's time for that to happen. But let's not use an absurd argument like "raise minimum wage and there will be more jobs". That's like arguing that if you put an electric fan on the back of your sailboat, you'll go faster because you've got more wind in your sails.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is it your hope that a higher MW would somehow force the 1% to spend their "hoarded" money?
Click to expand...

It is my hope to take all steps necessary to make life more fair for those that are not super rich. On top of higher wages for the poor to help the economy thrive, I support higher taxes on that hoarded wealth, and severe penalties for tax dodgers.

Wealth Inequality In America - YouTube

The 1% needs to lose some of what it has. The assertion that it is unethical to redistribute wealth so millions of people can live more comfortable lives is completely asinine.
 
Anomalism said:
The idea behind it seems to be that if you put more wealth in the hands of the young/poor, they will spend that money and create more money flow in the economy, thereby raising local demand and employment.
Click to expand...

You mean the $15 trillion+ we spend each year isn't quite enough money flowing in the system but if we have to add a few billion more everything will be ok?

Geez why not just drop a few billion from a helicopter and get it in circulation even faster!
 
One other thing I'm guessing the lefties haven't thought of.....

Obama has been desperate to increase the number of jobs. The stupidly high unemployment that has plagued his administration is something he'd give his left nut to fix. If any of the braintrusts in his administration had credible reasons to believe raising minimum wage would fix that, it would have been done years ago. It would be popular with his constituency and if it would increase jobs, it would be a fix that would have already been in place. If, on the other hand, it would tend to kill jobs and stymie our crappy economy, then maybe not.... So how hard has Obama pushed for a higher minimum wage? What do you think that should tell you?
 
Papa bull said:
One other thing I'm guessing the lefties haven't thought of.....

Obama has been desperate to increase the number of jobs. The stupidly high unemployment that has plagued his administration is something he'd give his left nut to fix. If any of the braintrusts in his administration had credible reasons to believe raising minimum wage would fix that, it would have been done years ago. It would be popular with his constituency and if it would increase jobs, it would be a fix that would have already been in place. If, on the other hand, it would tend to kill jobs and stymie our crappy economy, then maybe not.... So how hard has Obama pushed for a higher minimum wage? What do you think that should tell you?
Click to expand...

Obama Gets Behind Democrats' $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal
 
Anomalism said:
It is my hope to take all steps necessary to make life more fair for those that are not super rich. On top of higher wages for the poor to help the economy thrive, I support higher taxes on that hoarded wealth, and severe penalties for tax dodgers.

Wealth Inequality In America - YouTube

The 1% needs to lose some of what it has. The assertion that it is unethical to redistribute wealth so millions of people can live more comfortable lives is completely asinine.
Click to expand...

How do you figure wealth redistribution is "fair". Is anyone that makes less than you do entitled to some of what you earn (provided you earn anything)? People who are homeless don't have it as good as you do, so you should be stripped of your excesses so that they can have more... right?

When you lose the sense of "fair" being that people are entitled to the fruits of their own labors but NOT the fruits of other peoples' labors, then the word "fair" loses all meaning.
 
Ockham said:
This has very broad appeal. Obama NOT getting behind it would be... well.... stupid.
Click to expand...

If they want it, they have all the votes needed to pass it. We'll see if they really want it. Then we'll know how sweet all the job creation it causes will be. Like I said, I'm not against it. We're due for that hike. But let's not bull$hit ourselves into believing it's going to create jobs. There's plenty of other things for lefties to bull$hit themselves about. The fact that the raise is overdue is enough and so the lefties can save all their bull$hitting for issues that don't have such a solid argument as it just being overdue and necessary to get re-aligned with historic rates.

p.s. I agree with the democrat position that it should be pegged to inflation, too. And that will end the minimum wage discussion permanently. :)
 
Papa bull said:
How do you figure wealth redistribution is "fair". Is anyone that makes less than you do entitled to some of what you earn (provided you earn anything)? People who are homeless don't have it as good as you do, so you should be stripped of your excesses so that they can have more... right?

When you lose the sense of "fair" being that people are entitled to the fruits of their own labors but NOT the fruits of other peoples' labors, then the word "fair" loses all meaning.
Click to expand...

We don't need to go to full blown socialism to live in a more fair world where poor people have more opportunity to thrive and be successful. I would (and do) gladly give up some of what I have to help those that need it the most. Watch the wealth inequality video I posted, and then explain to me how current wealth distribution is acceptable. If my ideal world means some billionaire has to watch the imaginary and unfathomable amount of wealth he owns climb just a little slower so poor families can afford to survive, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom