I'm not assuming anything. You are, with "2 - 3 times the income", for example.
Where do the cost savings go? -Perhaps new investments? Maybe even new hires that were needed somewhere else than at the cash registers?
But really, a salary is, in principle, agreed on by the employer and employee together. But if they're legally not allowed to agree on a salary below X, then the employee will not get the job.
In other words, a higher minimum wage prices the lowest-skilled people out of jobs and prevents employers and employees agreeing on whatever salary might be appropriate if it happens to be below a limit set by some bureaucrat somewhere.
Minimum wage used to put a family just above the poverty line. That's the point of the minimum wage - to keep people out of poverty.
That may be, but whatever you think its point is doesn't matter. What I've described applies regardless.
You're also completely oblivious to purchasing power and how it can make it much easier (or more difficult) to get by even on the same nominal salary.
Yes, I am making a reasoned estimate with the 2-3 times income example. Don't latch onto that. I typed "for example" in there at first and deleted it because I figured that was an obvious enough hypothetical. The underlying concept holds true.
But really, a salary is, in principle, agreed on by the employer and employee together.
We're talking about minimum wage jobs here. That's any McDonald's or Wal-Mart job you get because you can't get anything else. You don't negotiate your wage whatsoever. You walk in, interview, and say, "Yes, please just pay me." When an employer right now says, "The minimum I can pay you is $7.25," the employee isn't going to say, "Oh, nevermind then, I'll just go continue eating out of your dumpster." That's a ludicrous assessment. The fact of the matter is, with or without a minimum wage, corporations are going to try to treat its lowest-paid employees like cattle. Minimum wage puts a hold on that. And companies do not hire fewer people due to minimum wage increases. That's another false scare tactic by the ultra-rich. As Nick Hanauer said, it's how the rich say, "I'm rich and you're poor and I'd like to keep it that way."
And how am I oblivious to purchasing power? Your tone is dismissive and insulting. At no point did I deny that purchasing power doesn't have an impact on ease of living. Here in Oklahoma, it's a lot easier to live on $15/hr than in NYC. That means if I want to move to New York, I'll be sacrificing potential upwards mobility through savings. Setting the national minimum wage at a level where you can get by paycheck-to-paycheck in NYC and sock away savings in OKC ultimately smooths out the desirability of specific cities and towns.
Yes, I am making a reasoned estimate with the 2-3 times income example. Don't latch onto that.
So it's alright for you to make assumptions (this time called an "estimate" to make the double standard less clear), but it's not alright for me?
When an employer right now says, "The minimum I can pay you is $7.25," the employee isn't going to say, "Oh, nevermind then, I'll just go continue eating out of your dumpster." That's a ludicrous assessment.
Good thing I haven't made that assessment then, isn't it? Could you please refrain from putting words in my mouth?
But the point is that without a minimum wage set, the employer could say: "Well, since you have no skills whatsoever, I'm afraid you're not going to be productive enough for $7.25/h, but you could start by doing <X> for $5.00/h if that's alright, and after you've gained some experience we can bump you up to $9/h"
But with a minimum wage set at $7.25, that can't happen, and that's how a minimum wage prices some people out of jobs that would otherwise happen. Do you get it? Do you also understand that the higher a minimum wage is set, the more people will be priced out of potential jobs in the same way?
And companies do not hire fewer people due to minimum wage increases. That's another false scare tactic by the ultra-rich.
Seriously. Do you understand what I've explained here? I've been kind of repeating myself, hoping that it would sink in.
I'm not assuming anything. You are, with "2 - 3 times the income", for example.
Where do the cost savings go? -Perhaps new investments? Maybe even new hires that were needed somewhere else than at the cash registers?
But really, a salary is, in principle, agreed on by the employer and employee together. But if they're legally not allowed to agree on a salary below X, then the employee will not get the job.
In other words, a higher minimum wage prices the lowest-skilled people out of jobs and prevents employers and employees agreeing on whatever salary might be appropriate if it happens to be below a limit set by some bureaucrat somewhere.
That may be, but whatever you think its point is doesn't matter. What I've described applies regardless.
You're also completely oblivious to purchasing power and how it can make it much easier (or more difficult) to get by even on the same nominal salary.
Yes, I am making a reasoned estimate with the 2-3 times income example. Don't latch onto that. I typed "for example" in there at first and deleted it because I figured that was an obvious enough hypothetical. The underlying concept holds true.
We're talking about minimum wage jobs here. That's any McDonald's or Wal-Mart job you get because you can't get anything else. You don't negotiate your wage whatsoever. You walk in, interview, and say, "Yes, please just pay me." When an employer right now says, "The minimum I can pay you is $7.25," the employee isn't going to say, "Oh, nevermind then, I'll just go continue eating out of your dumpster." That's a ludicrous assessment. The fact of the matter is, with or without a minimum wage, corporations are going to try to treat its lowest-paid employees like cattle. Minimum wage puts a hold on that. And companies do not hire fewer people due to minimum wage increases. That's another false scare tactic by the ultra-rich. As Nick Hanauer said, it's how the rich say, "I'm rich and you're poor and I'd like to keep it that way."
And how am I oblivious to purchasing power? Your tone is dismissive and insulting. At no point did I deny that purchasing power doesn't have an impact on ease of living. Here in Oklahoma, it's a lot easier to live on $15/hr than in NYC. That means if I want to move to New York, I'll be sacrificing potential upwards mobility through savings. Setting the national minimum wage at a level where you can get by paycheck-to-paycheck in NYC and sock away savings in OKC ultimately smooths out the desirability of specific cities and towns.
So it's alright for you to make assumptions (this time called an "estimate" to make the double standard less clear), but it's not alright for me?
Good thing I haven't made that assessment then, isn't it? Could you please refrain from putting words in my mouth?
But the point is that without a minimum wage set, the employer could say: "Well, since you have no skills whatsoever, I'm afraid you're not going to be productive enough for $7.25/h, but you could start by doing <X> for $5.00/h if that's alright, and after you've gained some experience we can bump you up to $9/h"
But with a minimum wage set at $7.25, that can't happen, and that's how a minimum wage prices some people out of jobs that would otherwise happen. Do you get it? Do you also understand that the higher a minimum wage is set, the more people will be priced out of potential jobs in the same way?
Seriously. Do you understand what I've explained here? I've been kind of repeating myself, hoping that it would sink in.