Question:
Since a minimum wage of $100 an hour will destory jobs, Shouldn't the minimum wage be $3.25 an hour to create jobs?
?
2014-08-09 09:09:21 UTC
since raising min. wage will boost economic growth, why not $100 an hour? 10 times the Big mac Prices. Inflation will 10 times multiply.

If we cut min wage in half, we will double job creation.
Seven answers:
mommanuke
2014-08-09 09:15:12 UTC
Actually, since doubling the minimum wage in Australia to $15, the Big Mac only costs 50 cents more than here. So I guess at $100 an hour, they would cost about $3 more.
?
2014-08-09 15:43:23 UTC
HA HA, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH



The truth is that increasing the minimum wage (MW) will not cause a loss of jobs.



This is because employers only hire as many people as they need to regardless of the wage scale. If they need 4 guys to flip burgers they will hire four guys if the MW is $4/hr or if it is $15/hr. The employer has no choice.



Decreasing the minimum wage won’t make a difference either. The employer needs 4 guys to flip burgers and that is how many the employer shall hire. A lower wage won’t make him decide to hire more people then he needs. Why hire more people and pay more money to workers than you need to pay?



Burger prices can’t skyrocket because if they do people will simply stop buying them. So the result of higher wages for the burger-flipper is simply that the employer’s profit shall decrease bit. The employer shall only raise the price of the burger if people are willing to pay for it.



But they always do that anyway regardless of wages. The price of a burger at this moment is the maximum price that the business owner thinks that you are willing to pay for it.



You see how irrelevant the MW is?
Armchair Goddess #1
2014-08-09 10:01:00 UTC
Stop and THINK, if possible, Dino:



Families whose supporters make only $7.35 per hour (the current minimum wage) have to pay rent or house payment, utilities (water, gas, electric), car payment (or transportation costs), putting gas in the car, childcare costs, all the basics. From these mandatory expenses, how much is left for consumer spending? Answer: Next to nothing! If there is no health care coverage for the family through the job, one medical bill can knock out any savings and put the family deeply into debt, which then adds a monthly DEBT to the equation, further depleting spending power.



Now study how CONSUMER SPENDING impacts local businesses. Business owners invest in goods to sell and then do a mark-up in the hope consumers will buy and their business will turn profits. If the demand is heavy enough, the business owners HIRE workers to handle the increased demand. These owners also stock their shelves by ORDERING MORE GOODS, and what American industries to these new orders impact? Shipping, for one...and also manufacturing (private sector jobs growth), who then also HIRE MORE in order to accommodate the INCREASED CONSUMER DEMAND. Each new hire brings in more local, state, and federal revenues through payroll taxes and, if the wage is high enough to surpass mandatory spending needs, also generates PURCHASING POWER, and maybe even some INVESTMENT dollars, and some SAVINGS---all of which help GROW THE ECONOMY and STRENGTHEN the nation's MIDDLE-CLASS, which continues to generate an ever-expanding upward and outward ECONOMIC GROWTH SPIRAL that strengthens ever level (bottom to top).



Most Americans want to make enough to achieve the proverbial "American dream" of owning a home, having a nice car or two, minimizing debt, attending college or sending the kids to college, having enough to invest and to take a vacation every now and then, buying occasional luxuries...and they are content with these earnings. What most working Americans would like to see is an end to the "era of corporate GREED" that began when Reagan's handlers had him scripted to fire PATCO (the Professional Air Traffic Controllers union) and start an ALL-OUT GOP-ENDORSED WAR on FULL-TIME WORKERS, especially those workers with BENEFITS such as a vested retirement plan and health care coverage---all to "expand profit margins" so that newly-greedy CEOs could have multi-$million$-dollar salaries, bonuses, and Golden Parachutes while freezing employee salaries at pre-PATCO-firing levels. Make the CEO salaries PROPORTIONATE to the salaries they pay their workers, since the profits are created by those workers.



Greedy-gut overpaid CEOs do NOT spend here in the U.S., they do not pay fair-share taxes here to support our infrastructure (banking off-shore to avoid taxes), nor do they hire here in the U.S., especially when SUBSIDIZED by the corporate-colluding GOP to move their operations to third-world nations with slave-labor ($300 PER YEAR) wages and NO BENFITS. Well-paid workers here in the U.S., however, DO SPEND HERE, and our businesses prosper when they do.
John
2014-08-09 09:26:31 UTC
You're an idiot. Typical right wing troll.



BTW, there is no evidence a higher minimum wage destroys jobs. It's just like a wealth tax. If you are worried about unemployment, which I don't think you are, then why not support a higher earned income tax credit? Or higher taxes on the rich?
anonymous
2014-08-09 09:11:32 UTC
Minimum wage of 100 per hour makes sense.
anonymous
2014-08-09 09:16:42 UTC
Another black and white con that doesn't understand the world is a complicated place. We need to find a healthy balance between the needs of the working class and the needs of the owners.
anonymous
2014-08-09 09:12:42 UTC
Lib trolls dont even try!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...