Can it be good??
Is this in Brazil? I presume it is good for people earning the minimum wage.
Yes
No. Actually helps a lot to increase the inflation and difficults the creation of new jobs. The social security is another big problem, its deficit is already high and every year (the minimum wage adjustament is annual) the problem is getting worse. Of course, the own brazilian’s people will pay that government deficit
Yeah, it can be good. It’s especially good if you currently make below the proposed minimum wage.
But if you get fired because your labor isn’t worth the minimum, then it’s bad.
Hurts more than helps. Let the market determine wages.
+1000000000000
But I’m a single mother of nine working a full time job that only pays me $13,000 a year. If I don’t get an arbiitrary raise and/or an increased amount of welfare and food stamps, my seven least favorite children will starve. Is that what you want?
heck im all for it. im a pretty good saver compared to most ppl. and i like to think im pretty skilled. so if ppl at the bottom get paid more, i can argue for a raise. when ppl get paid more they generally spend more so stocks prolly do better. i typically save more so when stocks go up my net worth goes up. so net net. i prolly prefer it. but yes ppl who lack skills i generally feel bad for but at least they got unemployment. and if ur unproductive u prolly shouldnt be working anyways. juss not efficient. u kno?
^Have you recently had a stroke?
I’m for raising the minimum wage. There needs to be an incentive for people to take jobs rather than collect welfare. We have a lot of people capable of doing things that don’t given current wages. If we solely let the market determine prices businesses will push for new unskilled labor to enter the country. Finally, it’s beginning to be frightening how cheap some things are getting and if this is what free market gets us I don’t want it. This may sound insane, but I saw you can get 50 chicken nuggets for $10 the other day… I’m just saying that’s more than what any of those workers make in a hour. I feel comfortable paying an extra dollar.
^ i certainly think senators should take this logic, “I saw you can get 50 chicken nuggets for $10 the other day” to congress but i’m sure most senators don’t know what a chicken nugget is.
let’s be serious. no human, aside from an IT manager will work at a fast food restaurant in 20 years, whether the minimum wage is $5 or whether it is $50. we’ll have conveyer belt nuggets that are cooked properly and served without a stink attitude. those Japanese robots are polite as heck. if we’re driving around in self-driving cars, don’t you think we’ll have self-frying nuggets, come on. i’m calling 100 nuggets for $10 in 20 years. any takers?
^ When I was in Europe in November, I had my first encounter with a self serve ordering kiosk at a McDonald’s in a Vienna train station. It was awesome, minimal human interaction other than somebody handing me my breakfast exactly the way I told the kiosk I wanted it.
That’s what’s coming to the US if the min wage crazies get their way…
When I read “self serve” McDonalds, I thought seriously? That is the best thing I’ve ever heard. But then, looks like you only order there, and there are still guys who make the order, not burger robots. So I was disappointed.
On the other side of the coin though, higher wages lower corporate profits which is a prettyyyy big contributor to stock prices, as well as creating jobs. The way I see it, it’s basically just pumping the consumer discretionary portion of the stock market. You could argue that it’s churning the cash faster, boosting GDP, but that hinges on the assumption that consumers benefiting from the higher wages are spending it quicker than corporations would otherwise. Even if it were the case that consumers are churning the cash faster, are the consumer expenditures the most efficient use of capital long-term? (rhetorical) Another question to think about, is the artificial floor sustainable for businesses or will they just pass the increased costs to consumers? And if these increased costs get passed to consumers, how long before these goods/services are outsourced? (already a problem)
EDIT: Kind of a crazy thought, but what if the government offered some sort of corporate tax credit for those companies that meet a minimum wage threshold? This could somewhat or fully cover the cost of the increased wages, keep corporate profits in line, put more $ in the lower class’ pockets. Would function as an alternative to QE.
. . . who keep their jobs after the increase.
All I’m saying is if the minimum wage goes up, I’m going to demand an equal increase in my hourly rate. Can’t be making the same as some barrista.
Some of those barristas are highly skilled workers. I once saw this coffee place where the guy drew a cat cartoon in the latte cream. That takes time and commitment. I can no longer go back to coffee without animal shapes.
^^way ahead of you. Here’s what I’ve been working on today:
all fair statements. a person’s expenditure thouhg is a multiplier of their income due to debt. in other words if you earn $5k more you can and most likely will spend more than 5k. really a function of consumer confidence to determine how much more. the stock market rises and falls on the basis of credit. when everyone’s credit is good, you can be sure there is a higher likelihood of bubbles.
minimum wage increases, i would argue, is a fairer form of qe (printing money and buying soverign bonds). people at the bottom have wages pushed up. companies with products that are highly sought after can demand higher prices, similar to a person asking for a higher raise. Some companies that cannot demand a higher price will decline/fail, similar to more unskilled laborers being unemployed as a result of the higher minimum price. the cost is that market participants will have to determine what those new prices and removing underperforming people. this will take time before the full effects are seen. in this scenario, the strong survive, there is more isntability in the short term. but better for the future. Now poor ppl who are negatively affected by this typically receive unemployment benefits. but it leads to a more effficent way of doing things. in my opinion. People talented should work and be highly compensated. people without talent should have the necessities. (this is a paraphrase from Julius Caesar) defining those necessities is up to politicians i guess.
QE is like a quick shotgun appraoch. it provides liqudity straight up, but it inflates assets, particularly investment assets which is held by the affluent. it lowers interest rates for everyone and lowers the cost of doing business. It saves everyone even the weak. which creates more systematic risk long term.
(I definitely dont think consumer expenditures is a smart use of cpaital long term, but its the fairest, the complete alternative is a command economy, and who would decide, but the person in charge of govt).
On the other side of the coin though, higher wages lower corporate profits which is a prettyyyy big contributor to stock prices, as well as creating jobs. The way I see it, it’s basically just pumping the consumer discretionary portion of the stock market. You could argue that it’s churning the cash faster, boosting GDP, but that hinges on the assumption that consumers benefiting from the higher wages are spending it quicker than corporations would otherwise. Even if it were the case that consumers are churning the cash faster, are the consumer expenditures the most efficient use of capital long-term? (rhetorical) Another question to think about, is the artificial floor sustainable for businesses or will they just pass the increased costs to consumers? And if these increased costs get passed to consumers, how long before these goods/services are outsourced? (already a problem)
EDIT: Kind of a crazy thought, but what if the government offered some sort of corporate tax credit for those companies that meet a minimum wage threshold? This could somewhat or fully cover the increased wages, keep corporate profits in line, put more $ in the lower class’ pockets. Would function as an alternative to QE.
[/quote]
Well, assuming a not-entirely-unlikely 3.5% inflation, $5 nuggets will become $10 nuggets in 20 years anyway. ,