If the unemployment rate was 4% instead of 8%, the minimum wage jobs would be paying well over minimum wage. Supply and demand. We're already taxing the billionaires to pay for what we don't borrow. Use the money to give the people you describe homes and food. It's called welfare, and sounds like they need it.
Speaking of billionaires... http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/03/news/economy/buffett-minimum-wage/index.html?iid=s_mpm Warren Buffett said he would love to see the minimum wage double to $15 an hour. But he admits that wouldn't be a good idea. Speaking on CNBC Monday morning, Buffett said a minimum wage hike could hurt jobs. "If you could have a minimum wage of $15 and it didn't hurt anything else, I would love it," he said. "But clearly that isn't the case." However, he added, he wouldn't argue with President Obama's proposal for a more modest increase, to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour currently. Buffett, the second richest man in the United States behind only Bill Gates, suggests a different way to help the working poor. He argues for raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives tax money back to those earning below a certain income level. "I think you can accomplish way more through the earned income tax credit without negative effects," Buffett said.
I don't hate or love that idea yet. Isn't that just subsidizing the labor market for businesses? Why not give tax breaks to certain business instead? I think this pollutes your free market some also.
QT Denny "Buffett, the second richest man in the United States behind only Bill Gates, suggests a different way to help the working poor. He argues for raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives tax money back to those earning below a certain income level. "I think you can accomplish way more through the earned income tax credit without negative effects," Buffett said. You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter lets him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument." I dont know what this really does except encourage poverty..
I've repeatedly suggested this same thing Buffett does in this thread. I've suggested that the refund be paid monthly since barfo thinks people are idiots and would spend the money all at once. But I'm not seeing why that would be bad. It isn't subsidizing the labor market for business. Business subsidizes welfare for the taxpayer. Again, this sort of thing gets money to the people that need it to not be poor, and does not force businesses to hike prices and hire less employees so some high school kid can earn a bigger allowance. I can't stress enough that supply/demand will raise minimum wage if job creation is encouraged. It's discouraged. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/b...-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Christina D. Romer is an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and was the chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.) It’s precisely because the redistributive effects of a minimum wage are complicated that most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families. For example, the current tax system already subsidizes work by the poor via an earned-income tax credit. A low-income family with earned income gets a payment from the government that supplements its wages. This approach is very well targeted — the subsidy goes only to poor families — and could easily be made more generous. By raising the reward for working, this tax credit also tends to increase the supply of labor. And that puts downward pressure on wages. As a result, some of the benefits go to businesses, as would be the case with any wage subsidy. Though this mutes some of the direct redistributive value of the program — particularly if there’s no constraining minimum wage — it also tends to increase employment. And a job may ultimately be the most valuable thing for a family struggling to escape poverty.
I agree with this sentiment, which to me is an argument for no minimum wage. If you want great employees, pay them well to attract the best and retain them. If you want to run on high turnover, then don't pay well. It should have nothing to do with the Federal Government.
As I said, no moral compass or conscience. By hoarding wealth at a rate second to only one other person, Buffett has created more poor people from former middle class people than we could possibly calculate. Now his solution is to overtax what's left of the middle class so they can join the poverty level. One big happy family of slaves.
Not quite. It is an argument for employers to man up and have a moral compass and conscience. For the most part, they haven't. History tells us they won't. Hence the need for a minimum wage.
Thanks for bringing that up. Nearly all large businesses and 1%ers now create their own charitable organizations as a way to launder their profits and further avoid paying taxes. Few charitable organizations, and practically no churches, actually work toward a charitable end. They are all simply private clubs seeking to line their pockets by avoiding their taxes.
