This is another criticism, not an alternative proposal.
Please give an alternative proposal.
Please give an alternative proposal.
Watch as "serious economists" lie about:
* All of the jobs that will actually not disappear.
* All of the prices that will actually not rise (by much).
And try really really hard to pretend that:
* Raising the minimum wage doesn't channel profits into the pockets of workers.
What surprises me isn't that they lie. What surprises me is that people continue to believe them.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion of western liberalism being against raising the minimum wage when it's been a core tenet of their platforms for over a decade now.
But to $20 an hour is something neither liberal nor conservative has EVER advocated for as until there is a public uproar for it, both will always side with corporate interests.
That said, your proposition is an alternative solution that I have never heard anyone of actual influence from either side of the political spectrum (outside of Sanders) ever bring up.
PS: Inflation is not really a single number as some but not all things end up costing less to produce over time. In other words, A may get more expensive while B becomes less expensive. Which makes long term inflation calculations more complicated.
The fact that the corporatist extremists ("moderates" like Obama and Clinton) squeeze this kind of idea from the public discourse is exactly what led to declining incomes which in turn is what made people furious enough to vote for Trump.
If you were a landlord managing an apartment building, how much do you charge for a unit? If all of your tenants suddenly make twice as much money as they did, how long before you double their rent?
If a McDonalds needs to pay all of its employees twice as much money, how long before they double their food prices to make up the difference?
I feel like the working poor in this country get a terrible deal in this world - we definitely need to make conditions better. But does raising minimum wage actually do that in the long run? Or does it just increase inflation and destroy any savings the poor might have?
Remember, your tenants are now able to move to gentrified areas, their wages allow that. Some might want to get a mortgage for a house they could not dream of previously. So now your apartments will have to compete with much wider selection of property. You'll raise prices definitely, but not as much as you would think, and you'll spend most of the difference doing renovations and spending on security.
It seems pretty wasteful, though.
* An increase in inflation but nowhere near enough to offset the rise in wages at the lower end.
* An increase in growth as the money multiplier effect kicks in.
* No real change in employment.
* Share prices fall and lowered earnings projections for classes of business that rely on minimum waged labor.
* As a sort of general guide, look at Australia.
>If you were a landlord managing an apartment building, how much do you charge for a unit? If all of your tenants suddenly make twice as much money as they did, how long before you double their rent?
It depends. This does not happen in a vacuum. If there are a lot of apartments coming on the market at the same time rent could stay the same or even go down.
Every business is subject to competition which would moderate the effect of inflation and tons of businesses that manufacture often respond to an increase in demand by raising production rather than prices (e.g. car manufacturing).
If it went up to $20 I'd project something like 4% inflation.
>If a McDonalds needs to pay all of its employees twice as much money, how long before they double their food prices to make up the difference?
If you want to see what happens to McDonalds, look at Australia:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-in-australia-vs-amer...
They A) raised the prices, B) raise the quality, C) actually kept the big mac price more or less the same, C) are facing competition from nicer restaurants (people have more disposable income and use it in restaurants other than el cheapo mcdonalds).
>I feel like the working poor in this country get a terrible deal in this world - we definitely need to make conditions better. But does raising minimum wage actually do that in the long run?
Yes.
>Or does it just increase inflation and destroy any savings the poor might have?
The poor have debts, not savings. Demand pull inflation caused by increased wages is just about the best possible outcome for them, but it is HORRIBLE for the rich and the rich have a very well oiled propaganda machine. Hence the "why don't you propose solutions" crowd and the downvotes on actual solutions ^^.
appears a bit of a strawman argument. Googling "$20 minimum wage" the only thing on page one is an article explaining the obvious that people would lose jobs if you did. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/02/20/why-shouldnt-we...
That is neither obvious nor is it true. It is the opposite of what is observed experimentally. When the effect of minimum wage hikes is measured across state borders employment remains static.
Already there are swaths of jobs that could be done better by machines but currently it's cheaper to hire a "cheap brown person" as the parent post says by outsourcing it. For example, the manufacture of clothing and footwear which currently employs many millions of people worldwide, mostly in SE Asia. As soon as rising wages pass that barrier and companies pony up for the required capital investments these jobs are never coming back.
There will always be more desires for new jobs/tasks that could be done - but the market price for them will be below the minimum wage, so they will happen only as hobbies.
That's a brave and entirely unsourced claim.
Given that this never happened in the past (e.g when almost the entire workforce was automated out of farm work), why are you so confident it will happen in the future?