You're operating from the nonsensical conclusion that minimum wage rates in any way determine actual worker pay. Only 0.05% of Us workers make the federal minimum.
People need to quit thinking the president is going to change their lives and yet never look at a midterm election nor who their preferred parties put up as candidates.
Never happen, both political parties that have gotten elected have created the tax laws that allow themselves and corporate executives to perform "legal" insider trading AND allow high income earners and corporate executives laws to shelter their "income" from taxes. People need to understand the big picture, THEY make the rules to exclude themselves from tax. Where do YOU think the politicians get the money FROM to stay in office for LIFE? Wake up. You want to change anything, you need to change that first.
It is interesting seeing how little some countries evolved in this area. Let me suggest you study the "Swedish way". Salaries is not something politicians should be involved in, it is too important to be affected by politicians, elections etc. Salaries should be set according to competitiveness, the lower the salary's the greater the profits, but also a lower possibility to attract employees. The higher the salary the greater the chance to get competent employees, but also the lower competitiveness a company will be. The lesser competitiveness, the greater the risk of it shutting down, resulting in all employees loosing. In Sweden we have two, non-political, organizations that jointly works to find the balance, the highest salary and still staying competitive. No company wants to be without employees, or only have unhappy employees. No employee can work in a company that is out of business. Both sides need to find the balance between these two extremes. No need to involve politicians to this mix and make it even more complex 🙂
But your argument is not factoring in the bargaining powering of the employees. Most employees would take the job even if it is low paying, if there are more job seekers than available jobs.
You could also lower taxes allowing workers to keep the money they earned. Eliminating gas taxes would lower the cost of all transportable goods helping all common workers, businesses and families.
Average pay in the US was about $50k or $25 an hour for about half the people in the US before the pandemic. Very few people in the US are actually at minimum wage. Some countries legislation already includes yearly increases in minimum wage. For some reason this has to have legislation passed for every increase in the US. Australia even has a minimum wage based on age so a family of four can actually make a living. These stories from corporate media all seem to be very shallow and lack any real information or investigation at all.
The problem with a federal minimum wage is that it's a one-size-fits-all approach to a many-sizes, many-fits problem. As it is, it's probably too low, but placing it too high for less-wealthy areas based on the needs of people in wealthy areas will cause huge problems for those poorer areas. Believe it or not, there are still places in the United States where homes sell for less than $30K. Most of the big chain stores and restaurants don't service these poorer areas; so, increasing the federal minimum wage just hurts the small mom-and-pop shops that do. What happens if they're driven out of business? McDonald's and Walmart aren't going to just open up there and lose money for the convenience of the residents, and they can't afford to move someplace more expensive.
It's hard for smaller companies to hold up especially if they're in low margin industries like family owned grocery stores. I think there should be a graduated minimum wage based on the number of employees and gross profit instead of a hard line.
@@studioplayy or they could get tax help. Small companies already have it super hard, the only way to keep them afloat is to subsidise them. Thanks capitalism! That said, people still need to live. You wouldn't be ok with sweatshop labor because "the company is small and can't afford to pay them better". There are ways to make this work, we just have to stop being cowards.
😢😢I know a major business had thousands of employees. Every time they modify a plant, they automate jobs. They have reduced their total number of employees by over 30% in the last 10 years. They have not reduced their international employees number of jobs. 🤷🏻🤷🏻🤷🏻
No one ever blames the stockholders who demand higher profits. It's inflation is easier to blame than majority shareholders demanding higher profits to maintain the wealth.
Of course. because only an idiot would do so. Shareholders (whether the wealthy or workers with retirement accounts) demand a basic return (relatively stable for several decades) determined in the market by the availability of alternative places to invest their money. Nothing insidious about it. Meanwhile worker pay is invariably bid *UP* to the risk adjusted marginal revenue product of the labor services provided or, in layman's terms, what those labor services are *actually worth.* This is precisely why real worker compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
@WilliamFleischmann-t8j the ceo of dollar tree at a press release discussing the reason for raising prices was to make the stockholders happy.. Kroger busted for purposely raising egg prices for higher profits. It's only benefits stockholders.
The stockholder are the owners of the company. The owners of the company can do with their property WHATEVER they want. They focus on profit. Profit is gained by pleasing customers. If you think you can do it better. Just found your own company and beat theirs. There is no law, that forces you to sell your company to the stock market.
@blablup1214 profit is not gained by pleasing customers. Dollar tree ceo said in an interview when they raised prices will make the stock holders happy. Raising prices does not please customers.
@@googiegress Quite the contrary. I have no problem whatsoever with unions, per se. And initially there were unions that provided real benefits to their members. That is largely not the case now And the fact is that unions were never responsible for any of the things they uniformly take credit for (better worker pay, the shorter work week, weekends, the 8 hour day, benefits, vacations, the effective end of child labor, etc.). Why? Are you one of those "workers would be screwed over without unions" liars?
@@googiegress Also are you so unimaginably stupid that you think I'm lying about the objectively proven *FACT* that minimum wage laws have never raised pay levels - ever - and, instead, result only in disemployment, most notably job loss? Do you have a problem with empirical reality?
@@FletchforFreedom If you're going to make outlandish claims, cite your sources. Because as of right now, it sounds an awful lot like you're a propaganda-addled conservative.
Automation is becoming even easier as time passes. There has to be another solution than just raising the minimum wage. When you raise labor costs companies start looking to phase those jobs out entirely with tech.
Temporarily this leads to people being unemployed. But most will get another education and find new, often better paying jobs after some time. In the long term it leads to improvements in productivity and wealth for society. At the beginning of the industrial revolution they invented machines to produce fabric. Workers vandalized and destroyed the machines in protest, fearing for their jobs. Imagine if we still had to make clothes by hand today.
@@einname9986 People will adapt over time for sure but I think the rate of change will happen so fast that not many people will be able to adapt and new companies will be slow to to hire at the start because for the long term it will be cheaper for them to automate as much as possible on top of it being a popular option to cut costs. Without any sort of protections the recovery process will just be more than what is realistic to recover from. You can program any action if you break it down into enough steps and I really do mean anything.
@@einname9986 The rate of change will be faster than most people will be able to adapt and that's assuming they even have enough money on hand to be able to spend years re-training for a new industry that might be so short lived they would be wasting their time anyway. But without a way to predict what will last and what wont it's a risk we all will have to take. Any action can be programed if you break it down into small enough steps and I do mean anything. I understand where you are coming from but the scale of integration into our lives is far beyond anything humanity has ever had to experience up to this point. Just saying people will adapt is true but at what cost. Not everything that happens to someone is directly their fault or in their power to overcome especially when they are having to compete against massive companies and everyone else that needs work. There's only so much you can stack the odds against someone without expecting them to fail 100% of the time.
Unions should be leading the way to help workers fight for far more than $17 an hour. What a worker made in 1975 if you do the inflation calculator, now it should be over $30 an hour. This is what these business people don't tell you. The stock market inflated. The housing market inflated. The car market inflated. CEO Pay inflated. The only price that didn't is your Labor!
Fire your incompetent fact checker. Unions are *ACTIVELY* fighting to have the minimum wage set as high as possible - mostly through dishonest sources like the Economic (sic) Policy Institute, NELP, CEPR, PERI at Amherst and ERLE at Berkeley. This is because unions benefit from the elimination of competition as workers are removed from the workforce by minimum wage laws. Your claim about the level is bizarre. Yes, the *MEDIAN* worker in 1975 made more than $30/hr in today's dollars. Of course, the median worker today makes more than $37/hr today. The minimum wage in 1975, however, was worth not a penny more than #12.29/hr in today's dollars. Workers today, in real inflation adjusted terms, make 58.3% ,ore than did workers in 1975! People aren't told the things you suggest because the voices in your head have no credibility.
Fire your incompetent fact checker. Workers today make 58.3% more today than they did in 1975 *AFTER* accounting for inflation. The minimum wage that year was worth $12.29 in today's dollars - and not a penny more.
During the pandemic the government gave weekly unemployment checks amounting to $600/week. Do the math that’s $15/hr so the government already knows minimum wage should be AT LEAST $15/hr rn.
Why? The presence of private equity has no relevance to anything (the morons shouting "Black Rock and State Street and Vanguard, oh my!" notwithstanding) and no competent economist takes the concept of "price gouging" at all seriously because the entire notion is absurd on its face.
Price hikes in impacted industries, yes. Inflation, no. Instead, the BS in the video notwithstanding, the only thing minimum wage laws have ever caused is disemployment, mostly job loss.
And who pays for higher wages? The customer. That is why everything is so expensive. It is not a coincidence that prices go up when the worker shortage occurred after Covid shut down. Now, the McDonalds employee can't afford to eat there.
If you want to know what will happen if the minimum wage is raises, look no further than when it was enough to support a modest life. (Yes there’s more to it, but let’s keep it simple like the video). The concept of a minimum wage was that one full time job should be enough to live life with dignity. And the worst case scenario, mass layoffs and price hikes? They’ve already been doing that. How many jobs have been replaced with automation since the MW stalled out? McDonald’s Big Mac costs as much as dinner at a nice sit down, and they’ll start asking for tips soon, Panera already does. You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not what will raising the minimum wage do? It’s what will happen if we continue to stall? If we the people can’t get some money in our hands, money that can actually work for us, the we’ll all be lined up for government assistance. We won’t get any because who has money to pay taxes? You can see in other countries that skilled labor fallows economic opportunity, and ours will be no different. So will be an economy where the vast majority has no work and no money, and our “high value talent” is jumping ship while they have the chance. Who will Corporate America sell their goods and services to then?
Great success?!?!? The man prolonged the Depression (and made it Great) by at least 7 years. His Wagner Act signing a couple years before created the Roosevelt Recession, And a minimum wage law (which has never done anything but harm to workers - even then) amounted to not a penny more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars, far from a "living wage". What fairy tale "success" are you talking about?!?!?!?
Implementing a policy that has never done anything but harm to workers after already having extended the Depression for at least 7 years (making it "Great") amounts to "great success"?1/1/ In what alternate reality. Look up price floors and price ceilings and see how disastrous both policies are.
@@ournextarc Sigh. A minimum wage is, *by definition,* a price floor and a maximum wage is, *by definition,* a price ceiling. Both are economically incompetent. Please do at least try to keep up.
@@FletchforFreedom i stand corrected, 1 example of price floor is Minimum wage. Regardless, Maximum Wages did work under FDR and his efforts led the country out of the depression and into an extremely prosperous age. Or do you not want to acknowledge that? Are you a paid shill or just do this for fun?
The problem is, prices for goods and services provided by those typically at the minimum wage are higher in the US, often to a significant degree, despite the lower minimum wages. It's corporate greed plain and simple, Americans accept less money for more work. The US has some of the highest worker productivity in the world and ironically the countries with similar productivity all provided their workers with universal benefits, more worker rights, and a higher minimum wage. $16,000 is slave wage, you can't do squat with that kind of money today. It won't even cover a single semester of school or the 4-5 books that cost $600 each you'll require per semester (Those are two more American greed stories).
There's a thing you're forgetting, the US has a population of 345 million people, a country like Finland that provides universal benefits, worker rights, high minimum wage, etc. has a population of almost 6 million. Trying to implement the policies of countries in Europe that have much better, and much higher, quality of life in the US is impossible to do so because of the sheer size of the country and because of various other factors that countries in Europe don't struggle with.
Setting aside the fact that anyone using the term "slave wage" has already proved a level of ineptitude too steep to overcome, did you miss the fact taht American workers not only make more than at nearly any time in human history (after adjusting for inflation) but make more than in any of those other countries to which you make reference.
@@FletchforFreedom Yes it will raise pay, possibly past value but that will happen with any minimum. I just want the lowest barrier to entry while raising skills to living wage.
@@skyak4493 Minimum wage laws have literally *never* "raised pay". To the contrary, the only thing minimum wage laws have ever accomplished is disemployment (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss specifically because any and every minimum wage hike raises the price floor above the value of those workers currently making less than the new arbitrary minimum. Why this persistent belief remains that somehow such workers are better off being unemployed that being paid less than an arbitrary minimum is beyond me. While inflation is universally harmful as well, at the very least it devalues the price floor and allows marginal workers to get jobs they could not otherwise have. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation merely renders such individuals permanently unemployable. How is it that the workers to which you refer that need to raise their skills to a level that allows them to earn a "living wage" are able to get those skills and earn that experience when a minimum wage set above the level of return that they generate prevents them from getting a job in which to accomplish those things in the first place?
Regardless of the wages companies are making record profits while blaming inflation. They are the problem and they need to lower prices while raising the wages.
In other words, you easily fall for complete bullshit. The "record profits" meme has been long shredded. Those profit dollars are the *result* of inflation. Profit *MARGINS* are not at record levels (and the only metric that matters).
The problem is morons like Robert Reich convincing you of factual inaccuracies like "record profits". What matters is profit *MARGINS* which have not increased significantly at all. Meanwhile prices are determined in the market (only government can create inflation) and workers are already fully compensated for the labor services they provide. All of those are facts. You need to find some actual reliable sources or maybe crack a basic economics book.
Just imagine the federal minimum wage $20 an hour the amount of things I can do that I have to have done will be astronomical and I can start Building back up my savings account. There So much work I need to get my house done, but I can’t afford it
BS. Average home price in Collin County, TX is $750,000. You don't even qualify for an good apartment unless you make $40,000 a year. Minimum wage in Texas is a joke. How can you even go to college when things are like this?????
Size of the wage isn’t the issue. It’s the value of the money that matters! & value of that money always goes down when FED interest rates are below 5%
The right minimum wage is different in different lines of work, all depending on the necessary attributes for the job you're aiming at. For example, the right minimum wage for long haul truck drivers would be 35 cents a mile.
Noit exactly. The right *actual* wage, which is constantly rising, is based on the return the worker generates. The right legally imposed minimum wage is always $0.00.
The part you left out from the business owner stance. NY raised minimum wage from $8-$15 over the course of three years. My lowest level employees were being paid $16-$17. Once the minimum went up by $7 per hour everyone requested a $7 per hour raise. Margins are not fat enough to give everyone that raise. If we don’t we loose trained employees. So, we raised prices for all our customers. Some customers didn’t like paying more so they went to a cheaper company. Less customers means we need less guys. So people lost their jobs. No one was minimum wage bust when companies say that raising minimum wage will affect everything this is what they are referring to. In my opinion a minimum wage job is not a long term job it is a place holder or a stepping stone.
$20 minimum wage for fast food workers haven't lost many jobs in CA. That's rubbish. Fast food chains are going out of business, closing left and right in CA!
that’s misleading, companies that closed shops have other shops in other states or they just closed the bigger shops as it does not apply to shops with less than 60 workers
@@maestrulgamer9695 labor costs does not affect prices. prices are always set to the maximum possible before demand drops. this is why mcdonalds costs the same across the world
in the end lifting the wages will always end up in the prices being increased, there's no magic trick that will make big corporations take some of the money out of their profits. it will always end up increasing their profits to cover those loses.
Can I ask, for some comparison curiosity, how much a loaf of bread or a litre of milk costs there? In Australia, with minimum wage being $24, one litre of milk is $2.35 and bread loaf $3.75 from the supermarket. $2ph sounds hard to make ends meet let
Some of that price increase may get passed on to consumers but it would also help people afford those price increases, meanwhile people who already make a lot would be able to afford price increases for the most part.
Ah, no. TYhere has never been so much as a single case in history in which minimum wage laws actually increased pay levels (instead of resulting only in disempolyment, most notably job loss).
Businesses aren't going to allow themselves to make less money because their employees want more money. If you increase minimum wage the prices of everything else is going to go up, and then we'll need to increase minimum wage again and the cycle continues. The government needs to focus more on lowering the cost of living and housing NOT just increasing the minimum wage.
Why? The employer is still required to make uo any shortfall and even the BLS notes that tipped workers generally make considerably more than the federal minimum. How is that a problem?
The main point here, is that "we don't know what the effects are going to be" is exactly right, an unintended consequences are the result. By trying to control such a complex system more bad is the likely outcome. Thomas Sowell has many proofs of this going wrong. If we would just leave it to the "market" to decide I think that would be much better. E.g. people will probably be earning more then the minimum wage already. Many young people who are just starting off, perhaps living with parents, just want "a" job and would work for less than $15 so they can skill up or earn some funds for education etc.... but now they won't be able to get such jobs/skills.
1. If we don't know what the effects are going to be then why do we assume the effects will likely be bad? 2. Why would a free market economy ensure higher wages? It can also go the other way without any minimum wages law.
Even if businesses reduce employee hours to offset and reduce costs of a higher minimum wage it still benefits employees. $7 an hour for 40 hours a week verses $10 an hour for 30 hours a week may result in the same monthly salary (it does not this is just an example), but employees benefit by having 10 extra hours of free time a week, (2 extra per day) that they change choose to invest in their education or other sources of income.
Judges? BUZZ!! Sorry, no copy of our home game for you. The disemployment effect has literally without exception exceeded any worker benefit. A clear example is Seattle where the research showed that compacted workers earned $125/mo *LESS.* Mostly, however, despite the long disproved claims made by the woman in the video, the real effect is job loss and the elimination of opportunities for the unemployed.
The party of the oligarchs , Republicans are responsible for a low minimum wage! The minions of the rich argue in favor of the employer not employees! The workers should just be grateful for the job the rich bestow on the poor! Reinforcing a cast and class society!
Thank your that enlightening display of economic and historical ignorance. Those in favor of the market and the elimination of the minimum wage do so because these things benefit *WORKERS*. The minimum wage has literally never raised pay levels and total real compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (the "stagnation" myth having been long debunked. The market has been the greatest friend the worker has ever known. Politicians (mostly on the Left) are the problem.
@@expeditioner9322 Robots *do* support the economy ... and create jobs when they are used because worker pay has naturally increased. The opposite is the case when companies use robots because the minimum wage has priced workers out of the market and their productivity is lost.
Even if higher minimum wages lead to short term layoffs as companies attempt to reduce cost, because more people have more money to spend, they tend to purchase more products leading to increased production resulting in the need for more workers to keep up with demands. You will see far more workers employed within a year as production ramps up than the number of those fired. And most of the time the same workers will be rehired as the company reduces costs by not having to train inexperienced workers.
Sorry, wrong again. The research is absolutely unanimous on this. There has literally never been an instance where a minimum wage hike has put more money in workers' hands. Quite the contrary, the disemployment effects (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss) has always exceeded any benefit to the handful who retain both employment and hours. The "virtuous cycle" you envision has been empirically disproved.
I'm old enough to remember being told that a $15/hr minimum wage was going to solve all the country's problems. It's been so successful in California that they're now protesting for a $20/hr minimum wage.
@@todd5687 no I’m living comfortably in California along with millions of others but ok…… just cuz you are broke and miserable doesn’t mean everyone else is.
You lit on exactly why this idea is ineffectual as a means of elevating the lowest earners and then completely failed to pursue that line. When companies pay higher wages and people have the money to buy more things (even basic necessities), prices increase--that's just simple supply and demand. This is called inflation, and the primary effect of raising the minumum wage is to drive inflation. The obvious problem with this is that the buying power of each dollar drops, and so even though workers are making more dollars, they ultimately end up in the exact same economic position they started in, and all we've accomplished collectively is chasing the dragon, so to say. Don't get me wrong; it's not really the root cause--ultimately, inflation is the fault of the Fed and the central banking system generally. However, minimum wage hikes don't effectually help the poor in anything more than the shortest of terms. If we were going to try to legislate our way out of this wealth disparity which has been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution, it would actually make FAR more sense to impose caps on salaries and overall compensation for executives and the extremely rich. This would protect the value of the currency and force companies to reinvest their excess capital into making better products and sustaining more highly-skilled and reliable workforces, and that would lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. I'm not saying that legislation is the answer at all; I'm just proposing something that would actually make a lasting difference to the problem if we had a mindset to go down that road. Of course, the problem is that such legislation would be blocked by the fat cats who have already bought and paid for our politicians on both sides of the imaginary "aisle." Clearly, when the most powerful people stand to lose a portion of their incomes, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it, which easily includes paying huge sums to lobbyists from corporate accounts just so that they can continue to give themselves 7-, 8-, and 9-figure bonuses rather than investing in R&D or in the workers who do the actual work to earn that money for them. My point with this observation is that yes, we have a broken economic system that favours the interests of a tiny minority over the general welfare, but our political system is JUST AS broken because it's been coopted by these self-same interests. Thus, seeking actual remediation from the government for the drastic inequalities that exist economically is a pipedream ... unless you're trying to apply a fatuous band-aid solution, like raising the minimum wage. The reality is we have far bigger systemic problems to contend with, and government will never be our partner in finding legitimate solutions to those, because it is incestuously tied up in the lot.
Imagine a grocery store happily selling you bread for $2, and then the government jumps in and says "Naah, that's not enough for the grocery store owner, you need to pay $5 minimum for that bread". That's minimum wage laws.
This is just not correct and is obvious propaganda. The California fast food minimum wage hike has caused a significant amount of problems. Besides the fact that the prices are obscene for the fast food places, it’s caused a lot of them to go out of business. It’s also forced other low wage (aka entry level) jobs to raise their starting wages to compete with fast food jobs, which has caused other businesses to raise their prices and go out of business. An entry level job is for entry level workers so they can learn how to be a worker, like teenagers. It’s had an effect throughout the labor force in California and now $20/hr is the sane spending power as $14 or $16/hr used to but the wages for jobs other than entry level haven’t risen according so it’s actually hurting middle income families and not helping entry level workers. But Kamala said she will force the whole country to pay a rate that has nothing to do with the market forces in each local economy. Shame on these people.
if burrito price went up 10cents so owner can pay livable wage to their employees, I'd gladly accept it. but in reality, it's more like $5 increase on $10 burrito.... what is she talking about?...🤦♂
Your comment is confusing. Actually, the gaslighting and condescending in the video is turned up somewhere in the thousands. And you shouldn't feel; "bad and threatened" for wanting to earn more. No one is stopping you. The problem with the pro-minimum wage crowd is that they are proposing an intervention to pay more than is earned - which never works anyway.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j Simply raising the minimum wage is a simplification of a more complex issue. Politicians need to come up with better solutions than just taking a simple idea and running with it, because it's easier than sitting down and actually fixing the cause. 🤷♂
@@megamanx466 And yet you have fallen for the basic premise pout forth by those dishonest politicians. *THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO BE FIXED* in the labor market. Again, total real compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Workers are not underpaid. It is literally impossible for companies to do any such thing. Inflation *IS* a problem but politicians won't fix it because only government can cause inflation in the first place - ever.
@@megamanx466 You proceed from a completely false assumption given you by those same politicians. There is *NOTHING* to be fixed here. The minimum wage is entirely harmful to workers. Suree, politicians could fix inflation but that's a separate issue (and pay rises faster than inflation) and since they are the sole cause of inflation and it is the result of politicians buying votes from various constituencies (and having to finance that via the central bank) expecting them to fix it is a pipe dream.
As this own video pointed out; businesses will pay what the market can support. No one gets paid the federal minimum wage.. gov't should stay out and let the markets set what works in that market
The Minimum Wage doesn't work and is not the answer. When you raise the minimum wage, it only helps for a very brief time. It creates a ripple effect, and all wages go up including the high earners. This makes the cost of everything go up and then the people making minimum wage are right back to where they were before the increase. I wish I knew the answer, but I do not. Raise it to $50.00 per hour and within a year everything will go up and people will not be able to live on $50.00 per hour.
@@oneday123456 In other words, set the minimum wage such that the people it already prevents from being able to get a job are rendered permanently unemployable. Yeah, that's helpful!
@@SteveRogers-y1j You're projecting. You haven't presented so much as a single fact. On the other hand, it is an absolute act that workers are fully compensated for the value of the labor services they provide (as has been empirically proved every time) an the reason that minimum wage laws have never resulted in anything but disemployment, mostly job loss (also empirically proved) is that employers lose money if they pay workers more than the value that those employees generate. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value, objectively fait. And literally no one making the federal minimum (0.05% of the workforce) is trying to make a living (secondary income earners, mostly students and part-time not needing to earn a living. You simply haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about - a surprise to no one at this point.
Whatever they raise it to it should be set to rise with inflation. Then the minimum wage debate would be set and rise as prices increase. I don’t care about any candidate who doesn’t mention this.
Not that stupid fairy tale again! That's in Australian dollars - about $15/hr USD PPP - and doesn't kick in til age 21. Younger workers can be paid as little as less than $6/hr depending upon the award.
Peg wage gaps so the richest in a company (including shares and assets and bonuses) can maximum earn 20x that of the lowest paid. Many companies' CEOs earn 10,000x that of their lowest paid staff.
A policy that has never worked in all history and famously put Ben & Jerry's in near bankruptcy. You proceed from the factually wrong premise that pay levels are based on anything besides the value generated (for that low end worker *AND* the CEO) and that more pay for one means less pay for the other. This is economically absurd. BT+W, the average CEO makes between 5 and 6 times what the average worker makes (BLS data).
Remember Nannygate where prominent political appointees were found not paying Social Security taxes for their domestic employees? Even good people can be buttheads when it comes to the welfare of others.
Talking point bots in the coments repeating corporate propaganda word for word. It isnt suposed to be a living wage?? Tf u talking about? Are people slaves or something that dont deserve to live off its wages?
Anyone bringing up slavery in a discussion of market wages is obviously a blithering idiot. You've now doubled down on it. You seem to think that any and every person who recognizers you as an economically incompetent buffoon is a "bot". You can't defend your asinine views so you dismiss anyone with facts you don't like. Brilliant! Answer me this, genius: If the minimum wage was supposed to be a "living wage", why was the initial minimum worth not a penny more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars? No answer? If it was meant to be a "living wage", why is the highest value it has ever been in today's dollars is $14.47/hr? Objectively, you have two mutually exclusive options: either $5.56/hr is a "living wage" or the minimum wage was *NOT* meant to be a living wage. By all means choose or prove yourself a coward. I'll wait.
Obviously, the high school student earning spending pay part time at the local Wawa doesn't need to live on his wages. Are you going to spread the myth that there is anyone actually trying to live on the minimum wage? Pure drivel!
Hey Guys, I just want to know if the cashier chick - wearing chequered red and blacks - from @this videos avatar thingie - ever found what she was looking for...
This is less about necessity and more about human behavior. If you pay people more they are going to work no harder than they did before. As a note: I am referring exclusively to blue collar jobs and wages where work is either sufficient or insufficient. I still believe in raises but not increasing minimum wages nominally for all workers just because of alleged effects of a worker’s ethic.
@@confrex4256 Actually, he's right ... with ine modification. If you pay people more money *unconnected to performance or merit* they are going to work no harder than they did before. Human beings respond to incentives so if you are rewarded for highg performance you will endeavor to provide continued high performance. Arbitrary increases incentivize nothing.
A minimum pay rate is by itself somewhat pointless if your local cost of living is high enough that you're still struggling even at $100 a hour minimum. It's relative. 🤷♂
@@megamanx466 Actually, no. A "minimum pay rate (price floor) is relevant only because it never does anything but put people out of work. It has no relevance on what workers make which has been increasing steadily and substantially at a rate faster than inflation for only 300 years.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j The minimum wage ties directly in to the cost of living. There are costs that act as a base/floor for what a worker needs to get paid to pay that base cost. Land isn't free and to buy it or rent it(or even to rent something built upon it) a worker needs to pay that just as serfs used to rent/lease land to work it. Now, after a worker has *hopefully* bought their residence/land, they can use that income previously spent to pay for luxuries they didn't have. Could their payrate then go down, because they don't need as high of an income to "survive"? Perhaps, but will they take one easily? Not likely, because at that age, the cost of healthcare starts to erode their income excess. I could continue further, because it's a complicated topic in actuality stemming back to the "Great Recession" in some ways and to the economic effects of Covid too. I also speak mainly for the U.S. as other countries have different laws regarding law ownership and went about the Covid crisis differently.
It was supposed to at the federal level. Originally it was intended to increase with productivity and innovation and at the time "minimum wage" was created, it did just that. It was meant to protect employees from their employers and ensure things were fair. Then employers got in bed with the powers that be and now we're here and have been here ever since. They've some how convinced many people that minimum wage = entry-level job and therefore = little pay, when that's furthest from the truth. The worst part is folks in middle class are actually siding with the rich folks that couldn't give 2 shits about them.
@@o0hotoko0o You are completely wrong. The minimum wage was literally *NEVER* intended to be a living wage (it was worth no more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars) and was never intended to be indexed to anything (how clueless does anyone have to be to take politicians at their word). As the minimum wage has never been anything but harmful to workers it need only be adjusted once - to $0.00. This will result in nothing but benefit to workers, particularly the low skilled.
Just like what is happeneing California with their new minimum wage for food workers. Hundreds of restaurants are closing down, hiking up prices, and replacing people with robots to keep labour costs down.
Evidence, every 1st world country outside the US, they pay their workers a livable wage while providing universal healthcare and prices are still lower.
Option 2 ( which no one would talk about so that they won't loose thier dumb viewers): gaining some skills so that you qualify for a non minimum wage job. There is no need for companies to be grateful to the employees, they don't work there because they want to do social service , they are there for the cash which they are getting. If you think 14 dollar an hour at egregious for you, no one's forcing you to quit
Minimum wage for adults in Australia is $24 (16 USD, double America's) and people are still struggling. America can definitely afford to pay their own people more. Then, maybe workers wouldn't have to rely on the predatory tipping culture just to make not even enough money.
Good grief. Not this endlessly repeated bullshit again! The Australian minimum wage amounts to $15.06 USD PPP but doesn't kick in for workers until they reach age 21. People are struggling in Australia because such boneheaded policies give them a lower living standard, a higher cost of living and higher long term unemployment. No one can "afford" to pay more because workers are already fully compensated for the labor services they provide (an empirically proven fact). This is precisely why minimum wages have never resulted in anything but disemployment, mostly job loss and the US, with its lower minimum wage, has among the highest paid workers on the planet and, by far, the wealthiest poor. Of course, no one with a grasp of history, economics or reality will ever take anyone using the phrase "predatory tipping culture" as anything but a buffoon anyway.
@@no-ic5gw I dunno. Given the objective fact that minimum wage laws have never raised pay levels so much as a single time in history and results only in disemployment, most notably job loss resulting in impacted workers earning *LESS* than before the minimum wage was raised, the question is how closed off from reality minimum wage advocates can be.
Like all of the politicians and businessman she's talking about how raising minimum wage will increase consumer costs. Why did she not mention businesses raising prices for items that don't cost them that much to produce? How about the CEO getting millions or billions for their paydays. How about every politician getting a $40000 budget to furnish his or her office. How about our world leaders throwing away trillions of dollars on war. Can those things have an effect on I flation and the economy?
Actually, she didn't mention those things because... a) most politicians fair a higher minimum wage b) anyone with a grasp of economics and history (including businessmen) point out that such laws raise prices in impacted industries and primarily put marginal workers out of work (because that's all that has ever happened ion history) c) even she is not stupid enough to believe that businesses in the competitive market raise prices for items that "don't cost that much to produce" d) maybe she isn't dishonest enough to pretend that, like workers, who are objectively paid based on the value that they produce, so, too, are CEOs e) the spending habits of greedy politicians (including on war) has nothing to do with the topic at hand In answer to your final question, as any competent economist can tell you only those items related to politicians have any relevance because the only possible creator of inflation under any circumstance is government by increasing the money supply relative to the available goods and services in the economy so that they can spend ever more on their preferred constituencies. Absolutely no business or person in the private sector can ever do anything to cause or prevent inflation. It is literally impossible (Econ 101).
@WilliamFleischmann-t8j Well ok, but how can you explain how some of these corporations can have a net worth of over a trillion, but still can't afford to pay the workers a living wage?
@@christophermontoya5526 Quite simply, there is precisely zero connection between net worth and pay rates. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value and in the (abundantly evident) competitive market for labor pay levels are invariably bid *UP* to the risk adjusted marginal revenue product or, in layman's terms, what those labor services are actually worth. Consider it this way. If you have a million dollars in the bank, can you "afford" to pay $1.10 for a perfectly ordinary $1 bill, particularly if you are expected to do so every hour going forward? Of course not. The money that you have in the bank (your net worth) has nothing at all to do with the transaction. The companies with the highest net worth got there by meeting consumer needs. In order to do that they had to find and retain workers that could contribute to that goal. And., in order to accomplish that, they had to fully compensate their workers and provide a return to shareholders (who provided capital) and entrepreneurship. The net worth was niot created by the worker and is not some pot of money on which the worker has any claim, long debunked Marxian nonsense notwithstanding.
@@christophermontoya5526 I can answer that easily. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value. What someone needs to live on is completely irrelevant and none of the company's business (not that anyone making such low is ever *TRYING* to live on it). Beyond that, that net worth (which was not created by workers - such Marxian idiocy having been completely debunked more than a century ago) is not some pool of cash to be distributed to workers (and spread across all of them would be tiny) but represents the investment in the business including buildings, plant & equipment, infrastructure, products, etc. Workers are fully compensated for *the value that they contribute.* That is an empirically proven fact. They (we) are entitled to no more than that no matter how much we may need to live.
@@christophermontoya5526 Easily answered: there is no connection at all between the two. Worker pay is an exchange of value for value (and workers are fully compensated for the labor services they provide). What they "need" is irrelevant. And net worth is not a pool of money to be distributed to workers (who didn't create it in any case).
Are you stupid? There are many jobs that still pay less than that. I know many people who work for 10 an hour right now. So many people work for less than 12 and hour.
Okay, that's an overstatement. Yes, only 1 in 2000 workers (0.05% of the US civilian workforce) make the federal minimum and the median full time worker makes more than $31/hr but with the lowest paid workers - the bottom 10% - making as much as $16.32/hr someone is bound to be making less than $12/hr. There just aren't all that many of them.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j The thing is 50% of HOUSEHOLDS make less than 75k. This amounts to 36 an hour. Keep in mind that the keyword is HOUSEHOLD. So when you account for dual income which nearly everyone does it amounts to 18 an hour. People who live in 15 dollar an hour states do not make much more than this amount. Not every job is full time either. Many companies do not pay full time wages ever. You also have to consider there are far more service jobs out there than you want to consider that with out them your rich ass will not get served when you go out to eat, buy any thing, pay your bills and so on. Service jobs are the backbone to which you can live your life. Not every job pays top dollar and there are millions of people still making less money than you think. Now consider that there is nearly 70 million people on some form of social security. These people make at the MAX 22 an hour or 3822 per month. The maximum that you can get per month. Many get less than 1000 a month which amounts to under 12k per year. If we want to do something then miniuim wage should be 22 dollars an hour everywhere in the country. If you do this then everyone would be rolling in the money and the corporations would jack the price up to double what it is now. There is a threshold where people will stop buying stuff and cut back and that is when they will lower the price again. Yet it does not matter because they still reap record profits. Companies could slash the price by 25% and still make a profit.
We don't need to raise wages, we need to lower the price of living, the profit margins need to come down. Businesses should never be making billions in a year, if customer demand doesn't outright reflect that.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with any factual information on this topic. The research is literally overwhelming that minimum wage laws are entirely harmful to workers. She mentioned Seattle favorably where the minimum wage law resulted ion workers making $125/mo *LESS*. It ignores the job flight and increase in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment in California and pretends that the minimum wage was ever meant to be a living wage. These are all completely contrary to fact. How is that balanced or "centrist"?
@@kapitan762x54R He doesn't need to lie. He's not you. I'm am economist who knows the facts on this issue and have for been longer than you've been alive. I can validate literally every point he;s made and you can't challenge *ANY* of it (which is why you won't even try). It's no one's fault but your own that you are completely FOS.
@@andresd3104 Saika removed my reply...let's see if he does the same with yours. He doesn't seem to like when his position is proven incorrect, at best .....and destructive parroting of Leftist propaganda ..in truth.
Why did you remove my reply, that proved your comment incorrect. Fact - 10,000 jobs where lost due to your ignorance...sorry, raising the min wage to $20 USD. Low info people like you cause misery, and job loss.
Minimum wage is $15 in the UK and we struggle on that, so American workers must really be struggling!
By the time the big talk about $15 was over and employers stopped freaking out about it, the LIVABLE minimum wage should have been $30
Your taxes are also more ridiculous then ours.
@@nekocal At least the UK doesn't have to worry about getting sick and some big medical bill :p
@@T1kr3b3u They do if they die during the long wait times. Your point is well taken just the same.
You're operating from the nonsensical conclusion that minimum wage rates in any way determine actual worker pay. Only 0.05% of Us workers make the federal minimum.
$7.25/hr for a country without free healthcare is absolutely pathetic
Of course, no one actually makes that and health coverage benefits are widely available, Perhaps your understanding is what's pathetic.
We have state min wages. You have been misled.
People need to quit thinking the president is going to change their lives and yet never look at a midterm election nor who their preferred parties put up as candidates.
How about this? Set a maximum wage for the guys up top?
All the rich folks will have poly relationships so they can have a higher house income then lol
Never happen, both political parties that have gotten elected have created the tax laws that allow themselves and corporate executives to perform "legal" insider trading AND allow high income earners and corporate executives laws to shelter their "income" from taxes. People need to understand the big picture, THEY make the rules to exclude themselves from tax. Where do YOU think the politicians get the money FROM to stay in office for LIFE? Wake up. You want to change anything, you need to change that first.
The higher-ups will never accept minimum wage when they're too busy getting money under the tables ! 🤪
We used to have that actually.
Ok.
Is not like that would actually do anything,lol.
It is interesting seeing how little some countries evolved in this area. Let me suggest you study the "Swedish way". Salaries is not something politicians should be involved in, it is too important to be affected by politicians, elections etc. Salaries should be set according to competitiveness, the lower the salary's the greater the profits, but also a lower possibility to attract employees. The higher the salary the greater the chance to get competent employees, but also the lower competitiveness a company will be. The lesser competitiveness, the greater the risk of it shutting down, resulting in all employees loosing. In Sweden we have two, non-political, organizations that jointly works to find the balance, the highest salary and still staying competitive. No company wants to be without employees, or only have unhappy employees. No employee can work in a company that is out of business. Both sides need to find the balance between these two extremes. No need to involve politicians to this mix and make it even more complex 🙂
But your argument is not factoring in the bargaining powering of the employees. Most employees would take the job even if it is low paying, if there are more job seekers than available jobs.
You could also lower taxes allowing workers to keep the money they earned. Eliminating gas taxes would lower the cost of all transportable goods helping all common workers, businesses and families.
Average pay in the US was about $50k or $25 an hour for about half the people in the US before the pandemic. Very few people in the US are actually at minimum wage.
Some countries legislation already includes yearly increases in minimum wage. For some reason this has to have legislation passed for every increase in the US. Australia even has a minimum wage based on age so a family of four can actually make a living. These stories from corporate media all seem to be very shallow and lack any real information or investigation at all.
The problem with a federal minimum wage is that it's a one-size-fits-all approach to a many-sizes, many-fits problem. As it is, it's probably too low, but placing it too high for less-wealthy areas based on the needs of people in wealthy areas will cause huge problems for those poorer areas. Believe it or not, there are still places in the United States where homes sell for less than $30K. Most of the big chain stores and restaurants don't service these poorer areas; so, increasing the federal minimum wage just hurts the small mom-and-pop shops that do. What happens if they're driven out of business? McDonald's and Walmart aren't going to just open up there and lose money for the convenience of the residents, and they can't afford to move someplace more expensive.
The idea that multibillion dollar companies can’t afford to pay more is ridiculous. It wouldn’t even make a dent
It's hard for smaller companies to hold up especially if they're in low margin industries like family owned grocery stores. I think there should be a graduated minimum wage based on the number of employees and gross profit instead of a hard line.
@@studioplayy That will likely just cause a brain drain in favor of larger companies
Oooor... We could subsidize small businesses that can't afford to pay their employees a livable wage and end corporate subsidies. Problem solved.
@@TokenBlackman7 ^^^^ This. A graduated subsidy system (and/or a graduated tax on large businesses) would solve that.
@@studioplayy or they could get tax help. Small companies already have it super hard, the only way to keep them afloat is to subsidise them. Thanks capitalism! That said, people still need to live. You wouldn't be ok with sweatshop labor because "the company is small and can't afford to pay them better". There are ways to make this work, we just have to stop being cowards.
😢😢I know a major business had thousands of employees. Every time they modify a plant, they automate jobs. They have reduced their total number of employees by over 30% in the last 10 years. They have not reduced their international employees number of jobs. 🤷🏻🤷🏻🤷🏻
No one ever blames the stockholders who demand higher profits. It's inflation is easier to blame than majority shareholders demanding higher profits to maintain the wealth.
The 'shareholders' are in part the regular Joe with a 401k index fund.
Of course. because only an idiot would do so. Shareholders (whether the wealthy or workers with retirement accounts) demand a basic return (relatively stable for several decades) determined in the market by the availability of alternative places to invest their money. Nothing insidious about it. Meanwhile worker pay is invariably bid *UP* to the risk adjusted marginal revenue product of the labor services provided or, in layman's terms, what those labor services are *actually worth.* This is precisely why real worker compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
@WilliamFleischmann-t8j the ceo of dollar tree at a press release discussing the reason for raising prices was to make the stockholders happy.. Kroger busted for purposely raising egg prices for higher profits. It's only benefits stockholders.
The stockholder are the owners of the company.
The owners of the company can do with their property WHATEVER they want.
They focus on profit. Profit is gained by pleasing customers.
If you think you can do it better.
Just found your own company and beat theirs.
There is no law, that forces you to sell your company to the stock market.
@blablup1214 profit is not gained by pleasing customers. Dollar tree ceo said in an interview when they raised prices will make the stock holders happy. Raising prices does not please customers.
Minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living and automatically rise, no one should have to change it.
Better ye, set it at $0.00 so it no longer harms workers (which is all it's ever done).
@@FletchforFreedom Bet you're one of those "unions only harm workers" liars too.
@@googiegress Quite the contrary. I have no problem whatsoever with unions, per se. And initially there were unions that provided real benefits to their members. That is largely not the case now And the fact is that unions were never responsible for any of the things they uniformly take credit for (better worker pay, the shorter work week, weekends, the 8 hour day, benefits, vacations, the effective end of child labor, etc.).
Why? Are you one of those "workers would be screwed over without unions" liars?
@@googiegress Also are you so unimaginably stupid that you think I'm lying about the objectively proven *FACT* that minimum wage laws have never raised pay levels - ever - and, instead, result only in disemployment, most notably job loss? Do you have a problem with empirical reality?
@@FletchforFreedom If you're going to make outlandish claims, cite your sources. Because as of right now, it sounds an awful lot like you're a propaganda-addled conservative.
Automation is becoming even easier as time passes. There has to be another solution than just raising the minimum wage. When you raise labor costs companies start looking to phase those jobs out entirely with tech.
Temporarily this leads to people being unemployed. But most will get another education and find new, often better paying jobs after some time. In the long term it leads to improvements in productivity and wealth for society. At the beginning of the industrial revolution they invented machines to produce fabric. Workers vandalized and destroyed the machines in protest, fearing for their jobs.
Imagine if we still had to make clothes by hand today.
@@einname9986 People will adapt over time for sure but I think the rate of change will happen so fast that not many people will be able to adapt and new companies will be slow to to hire at the start because for the long term it will be cheaper for them to automate as much as possible on top of it being a popular option to cut costs. Without any sort of protections the recovery process will just be more than what is realistic to recover from. You can program any action if you break it down into enough steps and I really do mean anything.
@@einname9986 The rate of change will be faster than most people will be able to adapt and that's assuming they even have enough money on hand to be able to spend years re-training for a new industry that might be so short lived they would be wasting their time anyway. But without a way to predict what will last and what wont it's a risk we all will have to take. Any action can be programed if you break it down into small enough steps and I do mean anything. I understand where you are coming from but the scale of integration into our lives is far beyond anything humanity has ever had to experience up to this point. Just saying people will adapt is true but at what cost. Not everything that happens to someone is directly their fault or in their power to overcome especially when they are having to compete against massive companies and everyone else that needs work. There's only so much you can stack the odds against someone without expecting them to fail 100% of the time.
Unions should be leading the way to help workers fight for far more than $17 an hour. What a worker made in 1975 if you do the inflation calculator, now it should be over $30 an hour. This is what these business people don't tell you. The stock market inflated. The housing market inflated. The car market inflated. CEO Pay inflated. The only price that didn't is your Labor!
Fire your incompetent fact checker. Unions are *ACTIVELY* fighting to have the minimum wage set as high as possible - mostly through dishonest sources like the Economic (sic) Policy Institute, NELP, CEPR, PERI at Amherst and ERLE at Berkeley. This is because unions benefit from the elimination of competition as workers are removed from the workforce by minimum wage laws. Your claim about the level is bizarre. Yes, the *MEDIAN* worker in 1975 made more than $30/hr in today's dollars. Of course, the median worker today makes more than $37/hr today. The minimum wage in 1975, however, was worth not a penny more than #12.29/hr in today's dollars. Workers today, in real inflation adjusted terms, make 58.3% ,ore than did workers in 1975! People aren't told the things you suggest because the voices in your head have no credibility.
Fire your incompetent fact checker. Workers today make 58.3% more today than they did in 1975 *AFTER* accounting for inflation. The minimum wage that year was worth $12.29 in today's dollars - and not a penny more.
During the pandemic the government gave weekly unemployment checks amounting to $600/week. Do the math that’s $15/hr so the government already knows minimum wage should be AT LEAST $15/hr rn.
Highly suggest everyone in the comments look into private equity in literally every sector (including the news!), and price gouging
Why? The presence of private equity has no relevance to anything (the morons shouting "Black Rock and State Street and Vanguard, oh my!" notwithstanding) and no competent economist takes the concept of "price gouging" at all seriously because the entire notion is absurd on its face.
Pay politicans minimum wage
"It's tough to pay $7.25 today" - You just proved you don't need ANY minimum wage. The market will raise wages based on supply and demand.
😂 people want higher minimum wage but people don't want to pay a higher cost.
Wouldn't that leave a cascading effect of inflation and price hikes ?
Price hikes in impacted industries, yes. Inflation, no. Instead, the BS in the video notwithstanding, the only thing minimum wage laws have ever caused is disemployment, mostly job loss.
It would, but pro-higher-minimum-wage advocates always ignore and hide that fact.
And who pays for higher wages? The customer. That is why everything is so expensive. It is not a coincidence that prices go up when the worker shortage occurred after Covid shut down. Now, the McDonalds employee can't afford to eat there.
We already have price hikes
God forbid the C Suite take a pay cut, that would just be bonkers, right?
If you want to know what will happen if the minimum wage is raises, look no further than when it was enough to support a modest life. (Yes there’s more to it, but let’s keep it simple like the video). The concept of a minimum wage was that one full time job should be enough to live life with dignity.
And the worst case scenario, mass layoffs and price hikes? They’ve already been doing that. How many jobs have been replaced with automation since the MW stalled out? McDonald’s Big Mac costs as much as dinner at a nice sit down, and they’ll start asking for tips soon, Panera already does.
You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not what will raising the minimum wage do? It’s what will happen if we continue to stall?
If we the people can’t get some money in our hands, money that can actually work for us, the we’ll all be lined up for government assistance. We won’t get any because who has money to pay taxes? You can see in other countries that skilled labor fallows economic opportunity, and ours will be no different. So will be an economy where the vast majority has no work and no money, and our “high value talent” is jumping ship while they have the chance. Who will Corporate America sell their goods and services to then?
It'd be very interesting to see a take on a maximum wage, as it was something FDR also initiated with great success.
Great success?!?!? The man prolonged the Depression (and made it Great) by at least 7 years. His Wagner Act signing a couple years before created the Roosevelt Recession, And a minimum wage law (which has never done anything but harm to workers - even then) amounted to not a penny more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars, far from a "living wage". What fairy tale "success" are you talking about?!?!?!?
Implementing a policy that has never done anything but harm to workers after already having extended the Depression for at least 7 years (making it "Great") amounts to "great success"?1/1/ In what alternate reality. Look up price floors and price ceilings and see how disastrous both policies are.
@@FletchforFreedom price floor and price ceiling isn't the same as Maximum wage.
@@ournextarc Sigh. A minimum wage is, *by definition,* a price floor and a maximum wage is, *by definition,* a price ceiling. Both are economically incompetent.
Please do at least try to keep up.
@@FletchforFreedom i stand corrected, 1 example of price floor is Minimum wage.
Regardless, Maximum Wages did work under FDR and his efforts led the country out of the depression and into an extremely prosperous age. Or do you not want to acknowledge that? Are you a paid shill or just do this for fun?
The Papa John's guy said he would have to raise pizza prices by 25 cents (it was actually 10 cents) to give his workers healthcare.
Make 15000 dollars great again
The problem is, prices for goods and services provided by those typically at the minimum wage are higher in the US, often to a significant degree, despite the lower minimum wages.
It's corporate greed plain and simple, Americans accept less money for more work. The US has some of the highest worker productivity in the world and ironically the countries with similar productivity all provided their workers with universal benefits, more worker rights, and a higher minimum wage.
$16,000 is slave wage, you can't do squat with that kind of money today. It won't even cover a single semester of school or the 4-5 books that cost $600 each you'll require per semester (Those are two more American greed stories).
There's a thing you're forgetting, the US has a population of 345 million people, a country like Finland that provides universal benefits, worker rights, high minimum wage, etc. has a population of almost 6 million. Trying to implement the policies of countries in Europe that have much better, and much higher, quality of life in the US is impossible to do so because of the sheer size of the country and because of various other factors that countries in Europe don't struggle with.
Setting aside the fact that anyone using the term "slave wage" has already proved a level of ineptitude too steep to overcome, did you miss the fact taht American workers not only make more than at nearly any time in human history (after adjusting for inflation) but make more than in any of those other countries to which you make reference.
Keeping a low entry isn’t bad, but they should require raises to keep an employee past 6mo, a year, 2 years, living wage at five.
That just means that jobs that will eventually require pay at a level higher than the value of the work eliminated will be eliminated as well.
@@FletchforFreedom Yes it will raise pay, possibly past value but that will happen with any minimum. I just want the lowest barrier to entry while raising skills to living wage.
@@skyak4493 Minimum wage laws have literally *never* "raised pay". To the contrary, the only thing minimum wage laws have ever accomplished is disemployment (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss specifically because any and every minimum wage hike raises the price floor above the value of those workers currently making less than the new arbitrary minimum. Why this persistent belief remains that somehow such workers are better off being unemployed that being paid less than an arbitrary minimum is beyond me. While inflation is universally harmful as well, at the very least it devalues the price floor and allows marginal workers to get jobs they could not otherwise have. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation merely renders such individuals permanently unemployable. How is it that the workers to which you refer that need to raise their skills to a level that allows them to earn a "living wage" are able to get those skills and earn that experience when a minimum wage set above the level of return that they generate prevents them from getting a job in which to accomplish those things in the first place?
Here in Australia minimum wage is tied to inflation. It goes up about 2-2.5% per year on average, no problems
Oh... my country rises it each year, sometimes twice a year, and I thought that this is pretty normal in all developed countries
Nothing is normal in America, at least not any more.
True enough but then Americans make more and almost certainly have a higher standard of living. Normal is poverrated.
America isn't a country, it's 3 mega corporations in a trench coat
The US is not a developed country.
Yet no one knows this mysterious country and it is not an economic power of note.
The US government needs to raise the federal minimum wage to $15.00 an hour federal minimum wage.
Regardless of the wages companies are making record profits while blaming inflation. They are the problem and they need to lower prices while raising the wages.
In other words, you easily fall for complete bullshit. The "record profits" meme has been long shredded. Those profit dollars are the *result* of inflation. Profit *MARGINS* are not at record levels (and the only metric that matters).
The problem is morons like Robert Reich convincing you of factual inaccuracies like "record profits". What matters is profit *MARGINS* which have not increased significantly at all. Meanwhile prices are determined in the market (only government can create inflation) and workers are already fully compensated for the labor services they provide. All of those are facts. You need to find some actual reliable sources or maybe crack a basic economics book.
Not true. Some companies are always making record profits but most are not.
Just imagine the federal minimum wage $20 an hour the amount of things I can do that I have to have done will be astronomical and I can start Building back up my savings account. There So much work I need to get my house done, but I can’t afford it
Howe much more can a worker do when the raise to %$20/hr eliminates his job?
All this time, kamala harris has been Vice president and she hasn't thought of that😂😂😂😂😂
BS. Average home price in Collin County, TX is $750,000. You don't even qualify for an good apartment unless you make $40,000 a year. Minimum wage in Texas is a joke. How can you even go to college when things are like this?????
Size of the wage isn’t the issue. It’s the value of the money that matters!
& value of that money always goes down when FED interest rates are below 5%
The right minimum wage is different in different lines of work, all depending on the necessary attributes for the job you're aiming at. For example, the right minimum wage for long haul truck drivers would be 35 cents a mile.
Noit exactly. The right *actual* wage, which is constantly rising, is based on the return the worker generates. The right legally imposed minimum wage is always $0.00.
The part you left out from the business owner stance.
NY raised minimum wage from $8-$15 over the course of three years. My lowest level employees were being paid $16-$17. Once the minimum went up by $7 per hour everyone requested a $7 per hour raise. Margins are not fat enough to give everyone that raise. If we don’t we loose trained employees. So, we raised prices for all our customers. Some customers didn’t like paying more so they went to a cheaper company. Less customers means we need less guys. So people lost their jobs. No one was minimum wage bust when companies say that raising minimum wage will affect everything this is what they are referring to. In my opinion a minimum wage job is not a long term job it is a place holder or a stepping stone.
$20 minimum wage for fast food workers haven't lost many jobs in CA. That's rubbish. Fast food chains are going out of business, closing left and right in CA!
that’s misleading, companies that closed shops have other shops in other states or they just closed the bigger shops as it does not apply to shops with less than 60 workers
In N Out has always paid their workers a fair wage and they are doing fine.
Yea,because the prices increased to make up for that!
@@maestrulgamer9695 labor costs does not affect prices. prices are always set to the maximum possible before demand drops. this is why mcdonalds costs the same across the world
@@oneday123456
But that's the thing. It doesn't cost the same across the world. McDonalds doesn't cost the same even across US!!
in the end lifting the wages will always end up in the prices being increased, there's no magic trick that will make big corporations take some of the money out of their profits. it will always end up increasing their profits to cover those loses.
the price of everything will go up astronomically!
Gosh i thought minimum wage was bad in the uk..... How has it not been raised in all that time 😮
The explanation for me was pointless but it did make sense. I do hope it gets better.
In the Philippines, we make $2 an hour... imagine how low that is.
Can I ask, for some comparison curiosity, how much a loaf of bread or a litre of milk costs there? In Australia, with minimum wage being $24, one litre of milk is $2.35 and bread loaf $3.75 from the supermarket. $2ph sounds hard to make ends meet let
@@bec9696 a liter of milk here is $2.94. Loaf of bread is $1.67
Lol people in the coments really licking the boot hard. Quoting Sowell and saying remove the minimum wage.
Since you have yet to present anything of substance and can't get your facts straight, how does that make anyone else look bad?
To me, it seems to depend at least partially on whether your local cost of living goes up too... such as a proportional rent increase. 🤔
Some of that price increase may get passed on to consumers but it would also help people afford those price increases, meanwhile people who already make a lot would be able to afford price increases for the most part.
Ah, no. TYhere has never been so much as a single case in history in which minimum wage laws actually increased pay levels (instead of resulting only in disempolyment, most notably job loss).
Businesses aren't going to allow themselves to make less money because their employees want more money. If you increase minimum wage the prices of everything else is going to go up, and then we'll need to increase minimum wage again and the cycle continues. The government needs to focus more on lowering the cost of living and housing NOT just increasing the minimum wage.
I’d like to see the tipped minimum wage go from $2.13 up to $7.25, it is not fair to expect your customers to pay for the majority of workers salaries
Why? The employer is still required to make uo any shortfall and even the BLS notes that tipped workers generally make considerably more than the federal minimum. How is that a problem?
Minimum wage doesn't matter. Let the free market work.
Free market didn't worked
The main point here, is that "we don't know what the effects are going to be" is exactly right, an unintended consequences are the result. By trying to control such a complex system more bad is the likely outcome. Thomas Sowell has many proofs of this going wrong. If we would just leave it to the "market" to decide I think that would be much better. E.g. people will probably be earning more then the minimum wage already. Many young people who are just starting off, perhaps living with parents, just want "a" job and would work for less than $15 so they can skill up or earn some funds for education etc.... but now they won't be able to get such jobs/skills.
1. If we don't know what the effects are going to be then why do we assume the effects will likely be bad?
2. Why would a free market economy ensure higher wages? It can also go the other way without any minimum wages law.
@@expeditioner9322 point is, why would we assume they will be good?
raising the minimum wage is the FASTEST way to boost the economy, the LAST thing the billionaire class wants is an economy in which we all prosper !
Make higher education affordable!
so, sounds like we don't need a FEDERAL minimum wage!
Even if businesses reduce employee hours to offset and reduce costs of a higher minimum wage it still benefits employees. $7 an hour for 40 hours a week verses $10 an hour for 30 hours a week may result in the same monthly salary (it does not this is just an example), but employees benefit by having 10 extra hours of free time a week, (2 extra per day) that they change choose to invest in their education or other sources of income.
Judges? BUZZ!! Sorry, no copy of our home game for you. The disemployment effect has literally without exception exceeded any worker benefit. A clear example is Seattle where the research showed that compacted workers earned $125/mo *LESS.* Mostly, however, despite the long disproved claims made by the woman in the video, the real effect is job loss and the elimination of opportunities for the unemployed.
Because we didn't enter inflation until near the end of the Trump term. 25%
The party of the oligarchs , Republicans are responsible for a low minimum wage! The minions of the rich argue in favor of the employer not employees! The workers should just be grateful for the job the rich bestow on the poor! Reinforcing a cast and class society!
Thank your that enlightening display of economic and historical ignorance. Those in favor of the market and the elimination of the minimum wage do so because these things benefit *WORKERS*. The minimum wage has literally never raised pay levels and total real compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (the "stagnation" myth having been long debunked. The market has been the greatest friend the worker has ever known. Politicians (mostly on the Left) are the problem.
Raise workers pay. Workers support the economy.
Except, of course, minimum wage laws have literally never increased worker pay. Quite the opposite is the case.
@@FletchforFreedomok corporate bootlicker
@@FletchforFreedomok corporate bootlicker
I thought, robots support the economy.
@@expeditioner9322 Robots *do* support the economy ... and create jobs when they are used because worker pay has naturally increased. The opposite is the case when companies use robots because the minimum wage has priced workers out of the market and their productivity is lost.
The President doesn't increase the minimum wage.
Even if higher minimum wages lead to short term layoffs as companies attempt to reduce cost, because more people have more money to spend, they tend to purchase more products leading to increased production resulting in the need for more workers to keep up with demands. You will see far more workers employed within a year as production ramps up than the number of those fired. And most of the time the same workers will be rehired as the company reduces costs by not having to train inexperienced workers.
Sorry, wrong again. The research is absolutely unanimous on this. There has literally never been an instance where a minimum wage hike has put more money in workers' hands. Quite the contrary, the disemployment effects (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss) has always exceeded any benefit to the handful who retain both employment and hours. The "virtuous cycle" you envision has been empirically disproved.
Get rid of the minimum wage.
I'm old enough to remember being told that a $15/hr minimum wage was going to solve all the country's problems. It's been so successful in California that they're now protesting for a $20/hr minimum wage.
and everyone is moving out of state 😂
@@todd5687who is everyone??? Lol
@@N1CO-NINTENDUDE lol u in denial or what? 🤣
@@todd5687 no I’m living comfortably in California along with millions of others but ok…… just cuz you are broke and miserable doesn’t mean everyone else is.
@@N1CO-NINTENDUDE guy go look at the numbers you people are fleeing the state.
You lit on exactly why this idea is ineffectual as a means of elevating the lowest earners and then completely failed to pursue that line. When companies pay higher wages and people have the money to buy more things (even basic necessities), prices increase--that's just simple supply and demand. This is called inflation, and the primary effect of raising the minumum wage is to drive inflation. The obvious problem with this is that the buying power of each dollar drops, and so even though workers are making more dollars, they ultimately end up in the exact same economic position they started in, and all we've accomplished collectively is chasing the dragon, so to say. Don't get me wrong; it's not really the root cause--ultimately, inflation is the fault of the Fed and the central banking system generally. However, minimum wage hikes don't effectually help the poor in anything more than the shortest of terms.
If we were going to try to legislate our way out of this wealth disparity which has been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution, it would actually make FAR more sense to impose caps on salaries and overall compensation for executives and the extremely rich. This would protect the value of the currency and force companies to reinvest their excess capital into making better products and sustaining more highly-skilled and reliable workforces, and that would lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. I'm not saying that legislation is the answer at all; I'm just proposing something that would actually make a lasting difference to the problem if we had a mindset to go down that road.
Of course, the problem is that such legislation would be blocked by the fat cats who have already bought and paid for our politicians on both sides of the imaginary "aisle." Clearly, when the most powerful people stand to lose a portion of their incomes, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it, which easily includes paying huge sums to lobbyists from corporate accounts just so that they can continue to give themselves 7-, 8-, and 9-figure bonuses rather than investing in R&D or in the workers who do the actual work to earn that money for them. My point with this observation is that yes, we have a broken economic system that favours the interests of a tiny minority over the general welfare, but our political system is JUST AS broken because it's been coopted by these self-same interests. Thus, seeking actual remediation from the government for the drastic inequalities that exist economically is a pipedream ... unless you're trying to apply a fatuous band-aid solution, like raising the minimum wage. The reality is we have far bigger systemic problems to contend with, and government will never be our partner in finding legitimate solutions to those, because it is incestuously tied up in the lot.
commenting cause i can
Imagine a grocery store happily selling you bread for $2, and then the government jumps in and says "Naah, that's not enough for the grocery store owner, you need to pay $5 minimum for that bread".
That's minimum wage laws.
This is just not correct and is obvious propaganda. The California fast food minimum wage hike has caused a significant amount of problems. Besides the fact that the prices are obscene for the fast food places, it’s caused a lot of them to go out of business. It’s also forced other low wage (aka entry level) jobs to raise their starting wages to compete with fast food jobs, which has caused other businesses to raise their prices and go out of business. An entry level job is for entry level workers so they can learn how to be a worker, like teenagers. It’s had an effect throughout the labor force in California and now $20/hr is the sane spending power as $14 or $16/hr used to but the wages for jobs other than entry level haven’t risen according so it’s actually hurting middle income families and not helping entry level workers. But Kamala said she will force the whole country to pay a rate that has nothing to do with the market forces in each local economy. Shame on these people.
I think you need to do a story on what would happen if the minimum wage was abolished.
if burrito price went up 10cents so owner can pay livable wage to their employees, I'd gladly accept it.
but in reality, it's more like $5 increase on $10 burrito.... what is she talking about?...🤦♂
Doesn't congress responsible for the minimum wage
Gaslighting and condescending turned to 11. Feel bad and threatened for wanting to earn more.
What?! The video was pro-increasing the minimum wage.
Your comment is confusing. Actually, the gaslighting and condescending in the video is turned up somewhere in the thousands. And you shouldn't feel; "bad and threatened" for wanting to earn more. No one is stopping you. The problem with the pro-minimum wage crowd is that they are proposing an intervention to pay more than is earned - which never works anyway.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j Simply raising the minimum wage is a simplification of a more complex issue.
Politicians need to come up with better solutions than just taking a simple idea and running with it, because it's easier than sitting down and actually fixing the cause. 🤷♂
@@megamanx466 And yet you have fallen for the basic premise pout forth by those dishonest politicians. *THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO BE FIXED* in the labor market. Again, total real compensation - what workers actually make adjusted for inflation - has increased steadily and substantially in a trend dating all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Workers are not underpaid. It is literally impossible for companies to do any such thing. Inflation *IS* a problem but politicians won't fix it because only government can cause inflation in the first place - ever.
@@megamanx466 You proceed from a completely false assumption given you by those same politicians. There is *NOTHING* to be fixed here. The minimum wage is entirely harmful to workers. Suree, politicians could fix inflation but that's a separate issue (and pay rises faster than inflation) and since they are the sole cause of inflation and it is the result of politicians buying votes from various constituencies (and having to finance that via the central bank) expecting them to fix it is a pipe dream.
As this own video pointed out; businesses will pay what the market can support. No one gets paid the federal minimum wage.. gov't should stay out and let the markets set what works in that market
It will create more inflation.
The Minimum Wage doesn't work and is not the answer. When you raise the minimum wage, it only helps for a very brief time. It creates a ripple effect, and all wages go up including the high earners. This makes the cost of everything go up and then the people making minimum wage are right back to where they were before the increase. I wish I knew the answer, but I do not. Raise it to $50.00 per hour and within a year everything will go up and people will not be able to live on $50.00 per hour.
This is the dang truth right here. You can never fill an endless cup.
then peg it to inflation. problem solved
@@oneday123456 In other words, set the minimum wage such that the people it already prevents from being able to get a job are rendered permanently unemployable. Yeah, that's helpful!
@@FletchforFreedomyou sprout a lot of opinions I see little facts to back it up
@@SteveRogers-y1j You're projecting. You haven't presented so much as a single fact. On the other hand, it is an absolute act that workers are fully compensated for the value of the labor services they provide (as has been empirically proved every time) an the reason that minimum wage laws have never resulted in anything but disemployment, mostly job loss (also empirically proved) is that employers lose money if they pay workers more than the value that those employees generate. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value, objectively fait. And literally no one making the federal minimum (0.05% of the workforce) is trying to make a living (secondary income earners, mostly students and part-time not needing to earn a living. You simply haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about - a surprise to no one at this point.
So that customers would pay more tips.
Whatever they raise it to it should be set to rise with inflation. Then the minimum wage debate would be set and rise as prices increase. I don’t care about any candidate who doesn’t mention this.
Me when institutional unemployment
Minimum in Australia is $24 per hour.
Not that stupid fairy tale again! That's in Australian dollars - about $15/hr USD PPP - and doesn't kick in til age 21. Younger workers can be paid as little as less than $6/hr depending upon the award.
Minimum wage is for minimum skills
Peg wage gaps so the richest in a company (including shares and assets and bonuses) can maximum earn 20x that of the lowest paid. Many companies' CEOs earn 10,000x that of their lowest paid staff.
A policy that has never worked in all history and famously put Ben & Jerry's in near bankruptcy. You proceed from the factually wrong premise that pay levels are based on anything besides the value generated (for that low end worker *AND* the CEO) and that more pay for one means less pay for the other. This is economically absurd. BT+W, the average CEO makes between 5 and 6 times what the average worker makes (BLS data).
Damn, France increases minimum wage every year
And France has been consistently pushing double digit unemployment for how many decades, again?
Remember Nannygate where prominent political appointees were found not paying Social Security taxes for their domestic employees? Even good people can be buttheads when it comes to the welfare of others.
Talking point bots in the coments repeating corporate propaganda word for word. It isnt suposed to be a living wage?? Tf u talking about? Are people slaves or something that dont deserve to live off its wages?
Anyone bringing up slavery in a discussion of market wages is obviously a blithering idiot. You've now doubled down on it. You seem to think that any and every person who recognizers you as an economically incompetent buffoon is a "bot". You can't defend your asinine views so you dismiss anyone with facts you don't like. Brilliant!
Answer me this, genius: If the minimum wage was supposed to be a "living wage", why was the initial minimum worth not a penny more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars? No answer? If it was meant to be a "living wage", why is the highest value it has ever been in today's dollars is $14.47/hr? Objectively, you have two mutually exclusive options: either $5.56/hr is a "living wage" or the minimum wage was *NOT* meant to be a living wage. By all means choose or prove yourself a coward.
I'll wait.
Obviously, the high school student earning spending pay part time at the local Wawa doesn't need to live on his wages. Are you going to spread the myth that there is anyone actually trying to live on the minimum wage? Pure drivel!
Yet longahore workers wanna strike for a paid increase from $35/hr to around 70+/ hrs🙄
Hey Guys,
I just want to know if the cashier chick - wearing chequered red and blacks - from @this videos avatar thingie - ever found what she was looking for...
This is less about necessity and more about human behavior. If you pay people more they are going to work no harder than they did before.
As a note: I am referring exclusively to blue collar jobs and wages where work is either sufficient or insufficient. I still believe in raises but not increasing minimum wages nominally for all workers just because of alleged effects of a worker’s ethic.
@@confrex4256
That's just a naive way to see things.
@@confrex4256 Actually, he's right ... with ine modification. If you pay people more money *unconnected to performance or merit* they are going to work no harder than they did before. Human beings respond to incentives so if you are rewarded for highg performance you will endeavor to provide continued high performance. Arbitrary increases incentivize nothing.
A minimum pay rate is by itself somewhat pointless if your local cost of living is high enough that you're still struggling even at $100 a hour minimum. It's relative. 🤷♂
@@megamanx466 Actually, no. A "minimum pay rate (price floor) is relevant only because it never does anything but put people out of work. It has no relevance on what workers make which has been increasing steadily and substantially at a rate faster than inflation for only 300 years.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j The minimum wage ties directly in to the cost of living. There are costs that act as a base/floor for what a worker needs to get paid to pay that base cost.
Land isn't free and to buy it or rent it(or even to rent something built upon it) a worker needs to pay that just as serfs used to rent/lease land to work it.
Now, after a worker has *hopefully* bought their residence/land, they can use that income previously spent to pay for luxuries they didn't have. Could their payrate then go down, because they don't need as high of an income to "survive"? Perhaps, but will they take one easily? Not likely, because at that age, the cost of healthcare starts to erode their income excess.
I could continue further, because it's a complicated topic in actuality stemming back to the "Great Recession" in some ways and to the economic effects of Covid too. I also speak mainly for the U.S. as other countries have different laws regarding law ownership and went about the Covid crisis differently.
That's not how capitalism work...
Minimum wage should be checked every year and adjusted accordingly
It was supposed to at the federal level. Originally it was intended to increase with productivity and innovation and at the time "minimum wage" was created, it did just that. It was meant to protect employees from their employers and ensure things were fair. Then employers got in bed with the powers that be and now we're here and have been here ever since.
They've some how convinced many people that minimum wage = entry-level job and therefore = little pay, when that's furthest from the truth. The worst part is folks in middle class are actually siding with the rich folks that couldn't give 2 shits about them.
@@o0hotoko0o You are completely wrong. The minimum wage was literally *NEVER* intended to be a living wage (it was worth no more than $5.56/hr in today's dollars) and was never intended to be indexed to anything (how clueless does anyone have to be to take politicians at their word). As the minimum wage has never been anything but harmful to workers it need only be adjusted once - to $0.00. This will result in nothing but benefit to workers, particularly the low skilled.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8jcheck what
FDR said about min wage corporate bootlicker
Just like what is happeneing California with their new minimum wage for food workers. Hundreds of restaurants are closing down, hiking up prices, and replacing people with robots to keep labour costs down.
Trump is a better fit for office
Evidence: Trust me bro
Evidence, every 1st world country outside the US, they pay their workers a livable wage while providing universal healthcare and prices are still lower.
Evidence: Childbirth rate stagnation because people cannot afford childcare let alone their own rent.
Getting the sleepy narrator in through the back door.. I see what you did there, BI
Option 2 ( which no one would talk about so that they won't loose thier dumb viewers): gaining some skills so that you qualify for a non minimum wage job. There is no need for companies to be grateful to the employees, they don't work there because they want to do social service , they are there for the cash which they are getting.
If you think 14 dollar an hour at egregious for you, no one's forcing you to quit
If everyone got skills there are still not enough higher paying jobs for everyone
There are a lot of opinions here being presented as fact.
Actually, a lot iof the video consists of outright lies.
Minimum wage for adults in Australia is $24 (16 USD, double America's) and people are still struggling. America can definitely afford to pay their own people more. Then, maybe workers wouldn't have to rely on the predatory tipping culture just to make not even enough money.
Good grief. Not this endlessly repeated bullshit again! The Australian minimum wage amounts to $15.06 USD PPP but doesn't kick in for workers until they reach age 21. People are struggling in Australia because such boneheaded policies give them a lower living standard, a higher cost of living and higher long term unemployment. No one can "afford" to pay more because workers are already fully compensated for the labor services they provide (an empirically proven fact). This is precisely why minimum wages have never resulted in anything but disemployment, mostly job loss and the US, with its lower minimum wage, has among the highest paid workers on the planet and, by far, the wealthiest poor.
Of course, no one with a grasp of history, economics or reality will ever take anyone using the phrase "predatory tipping culture" as anything but a buffoon anyway.
@@I_the_Taco our minimum wage is not 16. Its 7.25 federally. Most states don't improve that much.
Sounds almost like a higher minimum wage doesn't actually change things for the better.
@@maestrulgamer9695 other than letting people eat you mean? How closed off from reality can you be?
@@no-ic5gw I dunno. Given the objective fact that minimum wage laws have never raised pay levels so much as a single time in history and results only in disemployment, most notably job loss resulting in impacted workers earning *LESS* than before the minimum wage was raised, the question is how closed off from reality minimum wage advocates can be.
This is why you should not trust media.
Like all of the politicians and businessman she's talking about how raising minimum wage will increase consumer costs. Why did she not mention businesses raising prices for items that don't cost them that much to produce? How about the CEO getting millions or billions for their paydays. How about every politician getting a $40000 budget to furnish his or her office. How about our world leaders throwing away trillions of dollars on war. Can those things have an effect on I flation and the economy?
Actually, she didn't mention those things because...
a) most politicians fair a higher minimum wage
b) anyone with a grasp of economics and history (including businessmen) point out that such laws raise prices in impacted industries and primarily put marginal workers out of work (because that's all that has ever happened ion history)
c) even she is not stupid enough to believe that businesses in the competitive market raise prices for items that "don't cost that much to produce"
d) maybe she isn't dishonest enough to pretend that, like workers, who are objectively paid based on the value that they produce, so, too, are CEOs
e) the spending habits of greedy politicians (including on war) has nothing to do with the topic at hand
In answer to your final question, as any competent economist can tell you only those items related to politicians have any relevance because the only possible creator of inflation under any circumstance is government by increasing the money supply relative to the available goods and services in the economy so that they can spend ever more on their preferred constituencies. Absolutely no business or person in the private sector can ever do anything to cause or prevent inflation. It is literally impossible (Econ 101).
@WilliamFleischmann-t8j Well ok, but how can you explain how some of these corporations can have a net worth of over a trillion, but still can't afford to pay the workers a living wage?
@@christophermontoya5526 Quite simply, there is precisely zero connection between net worth and pay rates. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value and in the (abundantly evident) competitive market for labor pay levels are invariably bid *UP* to the risk adjusted marginal revenue product or, in layman's terms, what those labor services are actually worth. Consider it this way. If you have a million dollars in the bank, can you "afford" to pay $1.10 for a perfectly ordinary $1 bill, particularly if you are expected to do so every hour going forward? Of course not. The money that you have in the bank (your net worth) has nothing at all to do with the transaction.
The companies with the highest net worth got there by meeting consumer needs. In order to do that they had to find and retain workers that could contribute to that goal. And., in order to accomplish that, they had to fully compensate their workers and provide a return to shareholders (who provided capital) and entrepreneurship. The net worth was niot created by the worker and is not some pot of money on which the worker has any claim, long debunked Marxian nonsense notwithstanding.
@@christophermontoya5526 I can answer that easily. The employer/employee relationship is an exchange of value for value. What someone needs to live on is completely irrelevant and none of the company's business (not that anyone making such low is ever *TRYING* to live on it). Beyond that, that net worth (which was not created by workers - such Marxian idiocy having been completely debunked more than a century ago) is not some pool of cash to be distributed to workers (and spread across all of them would be tiny) but represents the investment in the business including buildings, plant & equipment, infrastructure, products, etc.
Workers are fully compensated for *the value that they contribute.* That is an empirically proven fact. They (we) are entitled to no more than that no matter how much we may need to live.
@@christophermontoya5526 Easily answered: there is no connection at all between the two. Worker pay is an exchange of value for value (and workers are fully compensated for the labor services they provide). What they "need" is irrelevant. And net worth is not a pool of money to be distributed to workers (who didn't create it in any case).
Since covid no job is paying less then 12.
Not quite true. I do think that raising the min wage to over $12 will hurt the overall economy.
Local daycares in my area pay $8 an hour.
Are you stupid? There are many jobs that still pay less than that. I know many people who work for 10 an hour right now. So many people work for less than 12 and hour.
Okay, that's an overstatement. Yes, only 1 in 2000 workers (0.05% of the US civilian workforce) make the federal minimum and the median full time worker makes more than $31/hr but with the lowest paid workers - the bottom 10% - making as much as $16.32/hr someone is bound to be making less than $12/hr. There just aren't all that many of them.
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j The thing is 50% of HOUSEHOLDS make less than 75k. This amounts to 36 an hour. Keep in mind that the keyword is HOUSEHOLD. So when you account for dual income which nearly everyone does it amounts to 18 an hour. People who live in 15 dollar an hour states do not make much more than this amount. Not every job is full time either. Many companies do not pay full time wages ever.
You also have to consider there are far more service jobs out there than you want to consider that with out them your rich ass will not get served when you go out to eat, buy any thing, pay your bills and so on. Service jobs are the backbone to which you can live your life. Not every job pays top dollar and there are millions of people still making less money than you think.
Now consider that there is nearly 70 million people on some form of social security. These people make at the MAX 22 an hour or 3822 per month. The maximum that you can get per month. Many get less than 1000 a month which amounts to under 12k per year.
If we want to do something then miniuim wage should be 22 dollars an hour everywhere in the country. If you do this then everyone would be rolling in the money and the corporations would jack the price up to double what it is now. There is a threshold where people will stop buying stuff and cut back and that is when they will lower the price again. Yet it does not matter because they still reap record profits. Companies could slash the price by 25% and still make a profit.
We don't need to raise wages, we need to lower the price of living, the profit margins need to come down. Businesses should never be making billions in a year, if customer demand doesn't outright reflect that.
Misleading video. You didn’t research enough. Raising the minimum wage never benefited anyone but politicians.
Wowza. I was expecting propaganda but this was acctually good. Still a bit too centrist but really not bad. Good job.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with any factual information on this topic. The research is literally overwhelming that minimum wage laws are entirely harmful to workers. She mentioned Seattle favorably where the minimum wage law resulted ion workers making $125/mo *LESS*. It ignores the job flight and increase in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment in California and pretends that the minimum wage was ever meant to be a living wage. These are all completely contrary to fact. How is that balanced or "centrist"?
@@WilliamFleischmann-t8j stop. You're not special. No one is reading your lies. How do you think this is socially acceptable?
@@kapitan762x54R He doesn't need to lie. He's not you. I'm am economist who knows the facts on this issue and have for been longer than you've been alive. I can validate literally every point he;s made and you can't challenge *ANY* of it (which is why you won't even try). It's no one's fault but your own that you are completely FOS.
This is what will happen: people will eat and sleep better.
Sorry, false statement, that destroys jobs.
Witness CA...the new $20 min wage destroyed 10,000 jobs.
Except those that will not be able to find a job because their skills are worth less than the minimum wage.
@@andresd3104
Saika removed my reply...let's see if he does the same with yours.
He doesn't seem to like when his position is proven incorrect, at best
.....and destructive parroting of Leftist propaganda ..in truth.
Why did you remove my reply, that proved your comment incorrect.
Fact -
10,000 jobs where lost due to your ignorance...sorry, raising the min wage to $20 USD.
Low info people like you cause misery, and job loss.
@@MarcPagan Your comment probably violated UA-cam's rules. We don't get the option to remove other people's comments.
This add paid for by the "Kamala and Walz campaign"
This head-in-the-sand ignorance brought to you by this red bearded white male 🤡