Angery people.

In reply to Enyar :

If it's impossible to draw any conclusions from my example, then it's also impossible to draw any conclusions that invalidate my example. The future is unknown. I've thrown out some rough guesses but all we can do is speculate about what is likely to occur. When CEOs or lawmakers make decisions about policy, they have to understand the most likely results of their actions. That's what I'm trying to do here. Please, show me a hypothetical example with some numbers that supports your position. I'm an analytical type, and being able to see some "best guess" figures might help me better understand your position, and might even sway me to your side.

We agree that prices would have to go up, or service/staffing levels would have to drop. Do either of those things improve the lives of the low-wage earners?

But my overall point, is that paying a "living wage" of $15/hr for unskilled labor may not actually benefit those at the bottom of the wage scale. If they're already receiving the equivalent to $15/hr through wages and government subsidies, then how does paying them $15/hr help them at all? It seems pretty likely that it will probably reduce their buying power since goods will be more expensive and sales tax will increase. If the goal is to help the people that need it most, that seems counterproductive. If the goal is simply to reduce government interference in big business it may or may not achieve that goal as it just depends on the numbers. Is it worth reducing government interference if it costs the taxpayer more in subsidies?

mad_machine said:

I can only go by my own experiences. I worked for years for a company that would only pay me $10/hr. I worked hard, I never wrecked the truck, and as I found out later, most of my fellow employees made more, but I was stuck at $10/hr.

When I quit that job, I took my experience to the Casinos and made over 3 times that amount. My ex-employer lost a good employee who knew a lot and was in demand at other businesses. His loss was my big gain. If he had doubled my pay, I might not have left. It was convenient to home, I liked the work, and I had good friends there. From what I understand, my position has been a revolving door since.

I had a similar experience. I was a top salesman selling construction equipment. When the housing industry fell apart in 2007 my company let 22 salesmen go but kept me on using the money in my retirement account to pay me for over a year while I searched desperately to find a new customer base and helping existing contractors by refinancing their equipment.   When those funds ran out I was terminated. 

Along with millions of other people I searched for work and got really desperate not finding it year after year.   Luckily I had saved a lot towards my retirement  but even that had limits. 

I went  to  the funeral of a former contractor. His wife left and took his kids when the bank took his house. He tried putting the tool belt back on and do remodels etc. but he couldn’t land any.  So he was reduced to sleeping in old boats or rooms above a garage, campers etc. He finally found work as a bag boy at a local grocery store living on tips.  

I’m not sure what caused him to take his own life. But I was in a similar place. My wife was dying of a rare cancer. I hadn’t earned a living in years. Two jobs I was able to get cost me more money than I could earn. And I’d sold just about everything I could except my house.  

Luckily my daughters were already married or away in school.  I finally got work driving a school bus and slowly pulled myself out of the hole. 

But a lot of children grew up with parents the system had angered losing careers, homes, retirement funds, and etc.  

Those are the ones  who take it out on classmates or whatever.  Not all of them but lately enough.  What is it 16 schools since the first of the year?  

In reply to frenchyd :

More like 7.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

How much can they buy with no job? Because as minimum wage is raised, that is what they are more likely to get. 

Why must I demand that they get a wage that is higher than the market says that their labor is worth? Why can't I demand that they work two jobs instead if they "have" to buy things? Lots of people work two jobs when they are starting off. Not wanting to work two jobs is a good incentive to work towards a better job. Or an unpopular job that pays better. Fast food or Walmart are unskilled jobs that don't pay a lot, but they are not hard jobs. There are plenty of low skill hard jobs that pay more. None in the person's area? No problem, they can move where the jobs are. I've known young, unskilled workers who made more in a summer than many skilled workers make in a year. But the jobs sucked with 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. This is not a this or that discussion. Lots of options for people who want to provide for themselves. Making them victims of their own circumstance is not going to help them. Lowering the bar is not going to help them. They need to help themselves. And most do just fine, without your help. And by help, I mean you volunteering other people to help them for you. 

You assume this is binary. Higher wages equals fewer jobs. Well it just doesn’t work that way.  

There is a point where a business/company can’t adjust prices fast enough to cover increased costs. But a dollar an hour for the next  few years is below that point in almost all cases.  

Costs went up seriously over the last decade from increased transportation costs.   Yet Walmart, and other big retailers stayed in business.  Restaurants etc raised prices and absorbed higher costs. 

Through the past two decades the top 1% has done very well. They now own 40% of the wealth of this country. Top management’s wages have continued to increase with bonuses often earned over the backs of those on the bottom. 

 In Germany the top management earns 18 times what the bottom workers do and Germany is the economic engine of Europe. 

In Japan top management  earns 13 times what workers at the bottom earn. 

Here in America it’s well over 2000 times and in a few cases around 5000 times one it was 14,000 times. 

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Ok, so lets do some math. The internet tells me that WalMart currently pays cashiers around $10/hr. Lets say they employ 40 cashiers at a store (full timers, part timers, etc). Your assertion is that it takes $15/hr to support them, with $10 coming from WalMart in the form of wages and the other $5 currently coming from taxpayers in the form of various subsidies, tax returns, etc. So, WalMart currently spends $400/hr on cashiers  ($10 X 40 cashiers) and Joe Taxpayer spends $200/hr ($5 X 40 cashiers)  to subsidize them.

Now, say WalMart is required to pay them $15/hr living wage. WalMart is in an absolutely cut throat retail industry. They're not going to just give 40 cashiers a 50% raise without some changes. Their clientele has made it very clear that low prices are their highest priority, so raising prices and passing the costs to the consumer isn't an appealing option for them. They're more likely to install self-checkout lanes where a single cashier can monitor 6 lanes instead of just one lane. This means fewer cashiers are needed, so they downsize by something like 40% to 24 cashiers. So you've got 24 cashiers that are fully supported by WalMart and 16 former cashiers that are now fully supported by the gov. 24 cashiers X $15/hr = $360/hr for WalMart to staff their store with cashiers. 16 unemployed cashiers X $15/hr = $240/hr that the government is now paying. The cashiers and former cashiers are all seeing the same amount that they saw before but WalMart's cost went down, and the gov's cost increased. This doesn't include any other reductions in costs that WalMart would see from downsizing the number of cashiers by reducing the amount of benefits and other costs associated with employing somebody.

 

Now to be fair, if WalMart reduced staffing by less than 33%, the math works out in favor of the Gov. But is it helping the cashiers in either scenario? They're seeing the equivalent of $15/hr either way according to your assertion. But with a higher minimum wage, some places are very likely to increase prices, and increased prices lead to increased sales tax on purchases. So you've got a cashier that's making the same amount as before that now has to pay more for goods and pay more in taxes. How is that helping them?

Your math assumes a binary solution.  Higher wages equals fewer jobs. 

Doesn't  work that way. 

Transportation costs have been increasing significantly the past decade yet  the top 1% are getting richer.  Prices increased with higher costs.  

No Boss keeps workers around just because they are cheap. He needs them or he does without them. 

STM317 said:

In reply to Ian F :

Yep. I try to avoid going into my local store so I haven't counted, but I think it has something like 30 single checkout lanes, about 10 express lanes for 15 items or less, and at least a dozen self checkout lanes. The self checkout lanes are always staffed. The single checkout lanes might have 2-4 lanes open.

 

When profit is king, and the margins are so small, workers are easily seen as a liability. That only becomes more true the lower the skill level required is to complete a job.

I went to my local Walmart fairly often due to a convenient location.  A few times each month.  It wasn't a bad store. Reasonably well stocked. Decent staff. I could get in-out pretty quickly. I usually used the self-checkouts.  However, it seems that my local store being "good" is also a symptom of an under-performing store: the store was closed at the end of Jan.  I also heard rumors the store had a large theft problem.  Either way, the closest store is now a few miles away and more of a PITA to get to... but on the plus side, I now have a Target option as well (equally a PITA to get to).  So in my case, closing my local Walmart not only lost Walmart a regular customer, it will likely mean an increase for Target.

In a previous life I did supermarket engineering, so I had some inner-working information about large box retail.  When labor is a store's biggest operational expense, they do everything they can to minimize it.  After labor is electricity, so many of the supermarkets I worked for were always looking at low-hanging ways to save on energy costs.

frenchyd said:

No Boss keeps workers around just because they are cheap. He needs them or he does without them. 

You've said this multiple times now, and I actually agree. They're not going to pay people they don't need. But if there's a cheaper alternative out there (like automation) then they're very likely to pursue that option. The math might justify keeping low-skilled workers in place @ $10/hr. But that math changes as their wages increase, and automation starts to look better and better. I think it's completely incorrect to just assume that the number of jobs won't go down if a living wage is instituted. The entire reason they're interested in automating things is because a robot or touchscreen can do the same thing the human can for less money. When you increase the cost of that human labor, why should they keep them around vs automating?

Automation is a threat to many jobs at various wage tiers. It's the biggest threat to those closest to the bottom of the wage tiers though. If you don't do anything special for your employer then you're expendable. Robots don't sleep or call in sick, or make as many mistakes, or require health insurance. They pay for themselves in productivity at some point. The more the wages of the human workers increase, the more appealing it is to replace them.

I'm not sure that using past as precedent in this case really works. Cheap, widespread automation is a fairly new concept, and the market is more efficient than it has been in the past due to the expansion of the global economy. Companies have to cut costs anywhere that they can.

STM317 said:

frenchyd said:

No Boss keeps workers around just because they are cheap. He needs them or he does without them. 

You've said this multiple times now, and I actually agree. They're not going to pay people they don't need. But if there's a cheaper alternative out there (like automation) then they're very likely to pursue that option. The math might justify keeping low-skilled workers in place @ $10/hr. But that math changes as their wages increase, and automation starts to look better and better. I think it's completely incorrect to just assume that the number of jobs won't go down if a living wage is instituted. The entire reason they're interested in automating things is because a robot or touchscreen can do the same thing the human can for less money. When you increase the cost of that human labor, why should they keep them around vs automating?

Automation is a threat to many jobs at various wage tiers. It's the biggest threat to those closest to the bottom of the wage tiers though. If you don't do anything special for your employer then you're expendable. Robots don't sleep or call in sick, or make as many mistakes, or require health insurance. They pay for themselves in productivity at some point. The more the wages of the human workers increase, the more appealing it is to replace them.

I'm still adamant that this is a good thing. We need to do whatever is most efficient and let the market decide. If robots are better than 3 unskilled workers so be it. I'm not saying it will solve all of our problems but at least it will solve one. If it creates another than we will deal with that accordingly (not enough jobs)

TBH I'm not too worried. To me there is a ton of work to be done with infrastructure, the environment and national programs. Put those suckers on government payroll and get to work

Subsidizing private industry is not the answer.

In reply to Enyar :

I find it a very interesting juxtaposition to not care about low wage workers displaced by automation, but to care about them enough to want an increased wage.

I also find it contradictory to  support the free market the way that you do, but want to fully subsidize the employees that can't cut it in a free market.

In reply to STM317 :

You are correct about replacing cashiers with self checkout. The self checkout is cheaper.  

Now let’s look at the whole picture how many people avoid the self checkout because they don’t know how to or have a complex purchase etc.    So reduced sales. 

In addition  what about theft?   You’ll have to watch those like a hawk to ensure no slight of hand or whatever.  I’m sure security costs more than a cashier. 

Finally identity theft means people can walk up to a self checkout slide a card of a 50 year old black man and walk out with the perfect dress for tonight.  ( if that’s not clear it’s a white woman using a black mans credit card).  

In reply to frenchyd :

If there's a choice between waiting in line behind several people to have your items checked out for you, or doing it yourself in less time, most people are going to figure out the self checkouts. There's still a cashier at self checkouts, they just monitor multiple lanes instead of a single one. They're there to help people through the process, check IDs, and stop obvious thefts. A full time cashier making $15/hr costs a company 31,200 annually in wages alone. That doesn't include benefits, training, lost sales due to human error, employee theft, etc. Actual cost can be many thousand higher. So by eliminating a single cashier job, a company can then absorb over $30,000 in lost sales, theft, etc annually and still come out ahead. Multiply that by a dozen cashiers per store and it starts to have an effect on the bottom line.

When is the last time a human cashier checked your id after swiping a card? It's been years for me. Can you imagine the E36 M3storm that would rain on a retailer in today's society if one of their cashiers assumed that a white woman using a black man's card was automatically stealing? What if it were her boyfriend's card? Or her boss with his permission? How does the cashier even know the race of the cardholder based only on a name? It's much safer to assume nothing is wrong and worry about fixing it after the fact if something does turn out to be wrong. They're all on camera.

Self checkouts don't eliminate the cashier position, they just transfer that job to the customer, who then does it for free. I will not use self checkouts. I'm like Bill Burr on that. NSFW

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Look I’m not looking to get any votes here. I just don’t like the government subsidizing private business.  Talk about picking winners and losers, this should be a hot button issue on that subject.  

I completely agree with you here, we are just 180 degrees out on how how to solve it. We both agree that an able bodied adult cannot support themselves on a single minimum wage job. 

You argue that they should be able to, because otherwise the government will have to subsidize him until he can support himself. 

I argue that should not be the case, you are assuming that he needs support when he does not. He may take it if you give it to him, but he doesn't need it. Either way, government support or increase minimum wage, society is subsidizing him. The government doesn't have any money of it's own, we are the government. If anything, as much as I hate the idea of subsidizing him through the government, a larger portion of that subsidy would come from higher income earners who pay most of the taxes. A minimum wage raise is also a subsidy, but paid directly by customers, more likely low wage earners. That said, a subsidy of any kind would have a negative impact for all- the tax payer or customer, the employee himself because he is not earning what he is worth and growing correspondingly, and the prospective employee who should be filling that position. And so the cycle continues. 

Well at least we agree that as workers go up the employment ladder  their income grows.  

All we have to agree on now is that there is a certain  cost to society/taxpayers for anybody to live. 

You do know the bus is subsidized.  That low wage income housing is subsidized. That there are programs and aide available for the poor and those are usually available up to past the minimum wage level.  

As to multiple  jobs ?  That’s fine unless kids are involved.  Single mom with kids?  Especially preschool kids!  Nope, not gonna cut it!   Those kids will either grow up unsupervised or poorly supervised. And society pays that price. 

EastCoastMojo said:

Self checkouts don't eliminate the cashier position, they just transfer that job to the customer, who then does it for free. I will not use self checkouts. I'm like Bill Burr on that. 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FxINJzqzn4w?rel=0&showinfo=0

 

Me too!  They are just another way to put more profit in the companies pocket. 

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

If there's a choice between waiting in line behind several people to have your items checked out for you, or doing it yourself in less time, most people are going to figure out the self checkouts. There's still a cashier at self checkouts, they just monitor multiple lanes instead of a single one. They're there to help people through the process, check IDs, and stop obvious thefts. A full time cashier making $15/hr costs a company 31,200 annually in wages alone. That doesn't include benefits, training, lost sales due to human error, employee theft, etc. Actual cost can be many thousand higher. So by eliminating a single cashier job, a company can then absorb over $30,000 in lost sales, theft, etc annually and still come out ahead. Multiply that by a dozen cashiers per store and it starts to have an effect on the bottom line.

When is the last time a human cashier checked your id after swiping a card? It's been years for me. Can you imagine the E36 M3storm that would rain on a retailer in today's society if one of their cashiers assumed that a white woman using a black man's card was automatically stealing? What if it were her boyfriend's card? Or her boss with his permission? How does the cashier even know the race of the cardholder based only on a name? It's much safer to assume nothing is wrong and worry about fixing it after the fact if something does turn out to be wrong. They're all on camera.

Wow you must really like those machines. Of coarse they can’t answer questions or stock shelves when the store isn’t busy. They can’t be promoted to the next step up the employment ladder.  They won’t detect items hidden in coats or make a customer happy with a smile or compliment. 

They cant straighten up the counter or reopen a box of impulse items.  It the price tag is fudged a bit they can’t look it up in a book for the stock number and price.  It won’t even clean its own glass if it gets dirty.  

Yawn. People are better. A good manager knows that.  A bad manager will let everyone go in a vain attempt to control costs. 

STM317 said:

frenchyd said:

No Boss keeps workers around just because they are cheap. He needs them or he does without them. 

You've said this multiple times now, and I actually agree. They're not going to pay people they don't need. But if there's a cheaper alternative out there (like automation) then they're very likely to pursue that option. The math might justify keeping low-skilled workers in place @ $10/hr. But that math changes as their wages increase, and automation starts to look better and better. I think it's completely incorrect to just assume that the number of jobs won't go down if a living wage is instituted. The entire reason they're interested in automating things is because a robot or touchscreen can do the same thing the human can for less money. When you increase the cost of that human labor, why should they keep them around vs automating?

Automation is a threat to many jobs at various wage tiers. It's the biggest threat to those closest to the bottom of the wage tiers though. If you don't do anything special for your employer then you're expendable. Robots don't sleep or call in sick, or make as many mistakes, or require health insurance. They pay for themselves in productivity at some point. The more the wages of the human workers increase, the more appealing it is to replace them.

 

I'm not sure that using past as precedent in this case really works. Cheap, widespread automation is a fairly new concept, and the market is more efficient than it has been in the past due to the expansion of the global economy. Companies have to cut costs anywhere that they can.

I’m the last person who doesn’t understand the future will be a lot more automated.  It’s coming,  and ultimately nobody will have a job.  Robots automation AI etc will take care of everything. 

Likely long after my death.  

In the mean time what will entry level people do?  

Perhaps you’ve  heard about us baby boomers  reaching retirement age?  We will need help. Stuff we used to do for ourselves will be done by low skilled entry workers. 

Maybe some will go with self driving cars to cover the last 20 feet to the refrigerator or medicine chest?  

Who knows?  

But ultimately everybody’s job will be gone. So so we might as well start thinking about that day.  

Artificial intelligence will put smart the best investors.  A I  will out manage people. Robots and etc will be doing jobs that used to be fun.   

So what will people do?   

frenchyd said:

I’m the last person who doesn’t understand the future will be a lot more automated.  It’s coming,  and ultimately nobody will have a job.  Robots automation AI etc will take care of everything. 

Likely long after my death.  

In the mean time what will entry level people do?  

Perhaps you’ve  heard about us baby boomers  reaching retirement age?  We will need help. Stuff we used to do for ourselves will be done by low skilled entry workers. 

Maybe some will go with self driving cars to cover the last 20 feet to the refrigerator or medicine chest?  

Who knows?  

But ultimately everybody’s job will be gone. 

How many retired people will be able to pay a low-skill person your required living wage of $15/hr to basically be a servant? Sure there are plenty of wealthy boomers out there retiring. Plenty of others that are barely getting by, and still more that are currently the low wage workers that will suffer from this because they have no retirement funds or inadequate funds. It would certainly be cheaper than a live in nurse or something, but those would likely be covered to some degree by insurance. Your $15/hr helper won't be. Do you have $30,000+/yr to pay a low wage worker to handle menial tasks for you? If it won't be a full time role, then it's still a net loss for the low wage worker. What happens when the boomers are gone?

Can you summarize your goal in all of this? We've been pretty wide ranging in this thread now, and I don't think it's possible to achieve all of these goals. Maybe you could focus on your highest priority.  Are you trying to help low wage earners? Revive the middle class? Stick it to big business? Eliminate government subsidies of private business? Make sure more people are happy so they don't go on killing sprees? Modify the tax code? What was the end goal when you started this thread?

In reply to frenchyd :

So what will people do after humans build machines that don't need humans anymore?  

Hmm...  

The path of evolution has always been hard to predict and fascinating to follow.  Provided you have the time.

STM317 said:

 

Can you summarize your goal in all of this? We've been pretty wide ranging in this thread now, and I don't think it's possible to achieve all of these goals. Maybe you could focus on your highest priority.  Are you trying to help low wage earners? Revive the middle class? Stick it to big business? Eliminate government subsidies of private business? Make sure more people are happy so they don't go on killing sprees? Modify the tax code? What was the end goal when you started this thread?

I don't think anyone has a good answer.  Or at least not one that can account for the the unpredictable variable of the human condition. All actions will have reactions. Some good. Some less so. It's hard to say what will happen until you try. 

Back in 1917, the Russians tried Marxist communism.  In theory, a "perfect" system of government. After 80 years or so, they realized it didn't really work and even now are still working through the fall-out.  But they tried.  It's easy to look back say how it was doomed to failure, but the world was a lot different back in 1917 with absolute monarchies, world-wide empires and corporate monopolies.

Some 150 years prior to the Russian experiment, a group of white men in Philadelphia decided to try something.  Something they thought could work for them at that time in history.  As we close in on the 250th anniversary of the start of the American experiment, maybe we will look back on it with some retrospect. What worked?  What hasn't really worked?  Is there some way to correct the latter without destroying the former?  

What can we as simple individuals do?  Well, that will depend a lot on your individual situation and what is right or wrong for some won't necessarily be so for others and definitely not everyone.  You do what you can to prepare for your own future while trying not to step on the future of others. Try to understand others' situations that may be vastly different than your own.  

But be patient. 

Any change worth having will take time.

frenchyd said:

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

If there's a choice between waiting in line behind several people to have your items checked out for you, or doing it yourself in less time, most people are going to figure out the self checkouts. There's still a cashier at self checkouts, they just monitor multiple lanes instead of a single one. They're there to help people through the process, check IDs, and stop obvious thefts. A full time cashier making $15/hr costs a company 31,200 annually in wages alone. That doesn't include benefits, training, lost sales due to human error, employee theft, etc. Actual cost can be many thousand higher. So by eliminating a single cashier job, a company can then absorb over $30,000 in lost sales, theft, etc annually and still come out ahead. Multiply that by a dozen cashiers per store and it starts to have an effect on the bottom line.

When is the last time a human cashier checked your id after swiping a card? It's been years for me. Can you imagine the E36 M3storm that would rain on a retailer in today's society if one of their cashiers assumed that a white woman using a black man's card was automatically stealing? What if it were her boyfriend's card? Or her boss with his permission? How does the cashier even know the race of the cardholder based only on a name? It's much safer to assume nothing is wrong and worry about fixing it after the fact if something does turn out to be wrong. They're all on camera.

Wow you must really like those machines. Of coarse they can’t answer questions or stock shelves when the store isn’t busy. They can’t be promoted to the next step up the employment ladder.  They won’t detect items hidden in coats or make a customer happy with a smile or compliment. 

They cant straighten up the counter or reopen a box of impulse items.  It the price tag is fudged a bit they can’t look it up in a book for the stock number and price.  It won’t even clean its own glass if it gets dirty.  

Yawn. People are better. A good manager knows that.  A bad manager will let everyone go in a vain attempt to control costs. 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The tech out there has robots doing all the above for much much cheaper than you would expect. No jobs are protected, robots will be taking over. Also not getting promoted is a GOOD thing in the eyes of the employer. And lets be honest, most of the big box store employees aren't that helpful and won't detect theft.

In reply to Enyar :

Well then,  according to you  there will be no more entry level jobs in the future.  So I guess  they should just plan on a life of welfare?  

In reply to frenchyd :

I don't think there will be none but I do think this is a serious problem that we will have to figure out. I don't have the answer.

I don't have time to read 18 pages, so I'll leave this here. 

My frustration?? I make 50% a year more than I did 18 years ago. Yet, I now pay out double what I did 20 years ago a month just for the house over my head, power, cable, etc. (and my house payment is only 150 more a month than rent was 18 years ago.  My money is worth less, yet my job doesn't want to pay me any more when I do more than is asked, yet still wants even more out of me. I can't find a job in my area that will pay me enough to jump ship.  

BUT!!! our economy is doing GREAT!!!!!! 

I'm calling BULL E36 M3!!!  I work in the real estate industry, I see banks writing mortgages for inflated housing prices, houses selling for FAR OVER asking price. In other words banks are dumping currency into the system, creating the same false economy that failed 10 years ago.  Nobody seems to have learned anything.  It's crazy!

Edit : OH yeah Issue #2. My wife and I don't have kids. My sister has 4. She doesn't work, her husband makes a little more than I do. I've paid every April for the last 3 years, and last year my wife put in EXTRA to avoid it this year, and we still paid.  yet my sister get's 10k back?? (btw, between the two of us we make a good bit less than 6 figures) So the people who made the responsible decision to not have kids, both work our asses off,  are punished while those who had 3 kids back to back (irish triplets?) are given a hand out? Another friend who has 4 kids (5 if you include his wife) all special needs get's even more back when NO ONE in that house works.

In reply to frenchyd :

All we have to agree on now is that there is a certain  cost to society/taxpayers for anybody to live. 

You do know the bus is subsidized.  That low wage income housing is subsidized. That there are programs and aide available for the poor and those are usually available up to past the minimum wage level.  

As to multiple  jobs ?  That’s fine unless kids are involved.  Single mom with kids?  Especially preschool kids!  Nope, not gonna cut it!   Those kids will either grow up unsupervised or poorly supervised. And society pays that price. 

As I said before, requiring someone be paid more than they are worth in the free market is a subsidy. Very similar result to any other subsidy that you can think of. You want to replace one subsidy with another- except not all low wage workers aure currently subsidized. I'd bet a very small percentage are. Raising minimum wage would amount to subsidizing every low wage worker, whether they need it or not.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

If they can’t afford a car and are forced to take the bus they are subsidized.  If. They go to emergency care and can’t pay the bill they are subsidized.  If they live in low rent housing they are subsidized.  

But let’s grant you they aren’t.  

Here’s the situation. If you want to start inflation, it’s no good handing out cash to the top 1%  they can spend tens of billions and nobody would notice.  

Hand the bottom 10% a dollar an hour and it will be spent every day doing the whole economy a great big favor.  

Inflation makes the national debt manageable. Or we can drown  in debt. Spending less and less on things we need to spend money on.  And more and more on interest. 

Most people are protected from the dire effects of inflation. The old the young rich and poor.  Only a handful of cash under the mattress types will be hurt.  We pay back China with devalued dollars. 

American assets  will increase in value.  But inflated dollars will make American goods cheaper while foreign  made goods will be more expensive and thus less attractive.  Jobs will have a greater incentive to come home. 

So pay a little bit more to those on the bottom. The increase will work up the chain.  You can thank me later for the increase in your pay envelope. 

In reply to Enyar :

Entry level will work taking care of baby boomers retiring in their homes ( its cheaper there than nursing homes)   Plus the world will create work.