- Also that laborer isn't being "brought down"; others are being "lifted up." Others don't have to lose for you to win.
And anyway, if the proponents of a higher minimum wage are correct, then this will result in a boom in the gross domestic product of LA as people who previously couldn't afford homes, appliances, or better food will be spending money on those things, increasing the income of LA businesses, which in fact would lead to rising wages for those skilled laborers you're so worried about… this is textbook Keynesian economics.
At the expense of what? If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. And nobody has mentioned any change accompanying this that would increase productivity.
And stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing", unless you're willing to admit that when the rules changed from Keynesian guidelines in the 1950s to supply-side guidelines in the 1980s as "robbing" from the middle class and the poor.
I wasn't saying it "needs" to be increased. I was saying that, if it doesn't increase, the value of whatever the workers are doing doesn't increase. So any increase in their wages means an increase in what they are being paid, relative to the value of what they are producing. Someone else has to make up that difference by accepting a decrease in the the value of what they are getting, relative to what they are paying for it--either they pay more for the same product, or they pay the same as before but get a product of less value.
> stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing"
Wealth redistribution in itself is not "robbing". I redistribute wealth every time I buy something.
What is "robbing" is wealth redistribution disguised as something else, so the people whose wealth is being taken don't know it and don't make a voluntary choice to give it up.
Do you object to taxes in general?
Strictly speaking, I voluntarily choose to be taxed, because I vote for representatives that make laws that impose those taxes. So I can't say I object to taxes as robbery (though there are extreme libertarians who do view taxation that way).
What's different about a minimum wage is that the wealth redistribution is covert, not overt. The government claims that the minimum wage won't take anything away from anybody. But it does.
Profits.
>If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another.
Yes, won't somebody think of the poor Waltons. They've worked so hard for their money.
That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it, you might want to think again. See below.
> won't somebody think of the poor Waltons
Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit.
Likely, both:
* customers - pass the cost on via higher prices
* suppliers - either force them to use overseas suppliers, or skip them and user overseas suppliers (where, conveniently, minimum wage, OSHA, ObamaCare(tm), etc etc etc simply don't apply)
Of course they won't. However, they know as well as anybody that their ability to finagle themselves out of it is limited to their ability to lobby and shape public opinion - against minimum wage hikes.
>Who said they would be taking the hit?
Economic studies on this generally all show that profits get hit first and hardest. Inflation happens in some industries, but only generally industries with wafer thin profit margins. If that phrase accurately described Walmart, the Waltons wouldn't be the richest family in America.
Additionally, there is some evidence that minimum wage increases also have a "ripple effect" that increases wages for workers earning more than the minimum: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-rip...
Hopefully the minimum wage will be enough of a boost that their children can then become a skilled laborer.
Even so, so what? I'm making more than some people with more education, and there are morons who were in the right place at the right time who spend more in a year than I'll ever be worth.
They will still be getting $15/hr, so they haven't been "brought down" to any level; others have been raised up.
Except they are. It's called the ripple effect.
"skilled" is a function of rarity, as is price. So, if you aren't priced like a rare good, I'm willing to bet you aren't "skilled".
EDIT: Minor spelling fixes. Also, the whole position is odious--help those in need, amigo.
EDIT2: Minor language cleanup to assuage hivemind.