- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: More evidence why you should oppose the "national" minimum wage hike ...
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:18 pm to Eurocat
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:18 pm to Eurocat
No, not really. It will probably lead to greater unemployment as this wage price is not at the point of market equilibrium that COL would require. Thus, employers will likely be forced to cut jobs.
Both workers and employers benefit from a strong local economy. And to have a strong local economy, you need conditions suitable to both workers and employers.
This policy, by failing to adjust for COL, hurts workers more than necessary in some areas and hurts employers more than necessary in others. Let's assume for the purposes of discussion it's an undeniable truth that a minimum wage hike to a $10.10 national average is "necessary." With this policy, workers in NYC are paid less than is "necessary," and employers in BR must pay more than is "necessary."
Thus, unless you're in an area where $10.10 is also your COL-adjusted equilibrium wage, i.e. your COL is at the national average, your economy is likely to see weakness wrought on by either pressure on labor suppliers or labor providers (relative to the rest of the country).
In all liklihood, this policy is a net negative to our country's economic well-being, even if you could argue that a $10.10 national average minimum wage would be positive were it otherwise applied on a COL-adjusted basis.
Both workers and employers benefit from a strong local economy. And to have a strong local economy, you need conditions suitable to both workers and employers.
This policy, by failing to adjust for COL, hurts workers more than necessary in some areas and hurts employers more than necessary in others. Let's assume for the purposes of discussion it's an undeniable truth that a minimum wage hike to a $10.10 national average is "necessary." With this policy, workers in NYC are paid less than is "necessary," and employers in BR must pay more than is "necessary."
Thus, unless you're in an area where $10.10 is also your COL-adjusted equilibrium wage, i.e. your COL is at the national average, your economy is likely to see weakness wrought on by either pressure on labor suppliers or labor providers (relative to the rest of the country).
In all liklihood, this policy is a net negative to our country's economic well-being, even if you could argue that a $10.10 national average minimum wage would be positive were it otherwise applied on a COL-adjusted basis.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 1:18 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News