Current Events > increases in the minimum wage lead to higher grocery prices

(+) Yeah! (+)

Questionmarktarius posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Thats not how this works rofl

Yes, yes it is.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/compassion-means-rejecting-minimum-wage

In practice, its a federal edict that makes it illegal to hire workers not skilled enough to produce at least $7.25 per hour worth of goods or services.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/freedom-works/

Also, his notion of removing minimum wage would likely hurt workers and help corporations more. But the rights platform is to say fuck poor people and try to boost rich people at every step.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/freedom-works/

A website with "freedom" in the name has a bias?
The hell you say!

Also, his notion of removing minimum wage would likely hurt workers and help corporations more.

Who's "hurt" more? The guy who can only get a job at $4.50, or the guy who can't get a job at all?

Whos hurt more; the people who lose their jobs because theyre worth too much (when you can pay people less to do more) or corporations who will get the increased profit?

Theres literally no evidence to show that corporations wont take advantage of relaxed minimum wage laws since they hold all of the power.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Theres literally no evidence to show that corporations wont take advantage of relaxed minimum wage laws since they hold all of the power.

There's literally no evidence that the 97.3% of workers who are now paid more than the minimum wage would suddenly get a paycut.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm

Questionmarktarius posted...

The guy who can only get a job at $4.50, or the guy who can't get a job at all?

probably the former since we have programs to assist the latter with getting by while he looks for a job that doesn't totally suck

but it's hard to look for a job while you have a job

esp when it's not a desk job with scheduled fuck around time like mine
---

Darkman124 posted...

probably the former since we have programs to assist the latter with getting by while he looks for a job that doesn't totally suck

do we? the only things I can think of that are generally available would most likely be available to both, excepting Medicaid in non-expansion states potentially

the working person has a better chance of keeping the various forms of welfare that do exist for them, too -- SNAP, for instance, which requires work or work activities for 20 hours a week to qualify
---

Were_Wyrm posted...

I was working at Wal-Mart when the last federal wage jumped and I can tell you one month to the day before the new wage went into effect we raised prices on almost every item in the store.

So the moral of the story is that corporations are greedy and want the maximum possible profit, no matter the cost, and they will do whatever it takes, so why even try?

So the answer is to... give up on society and let big corps dictate everything?

Raise wages? They'll raise prices.
Legislate health care? They will pull out of entire states
Have environmental regulations? Move to china.

So is our ultimate destiny to become another Bombay or Beijing?

Prices do go up, but they don't go up enough to offset the increase in the minimum wage. Unemployment also is still at near record lows even in states with a high minimum wage, so its not like that is a deciding factor either.
---

i saw the prices increase just a month ago, must be for the 2018 season, it's already hitting my finances so i gotta work around it

taco bell prices went up 30 cents on almost every item.
not sure about supermarket prices (think costco remained unchanged) for what i typically buy.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

probably the former since we have programs to assist the latter with getting by while he looks for a job that doesn't totally suck

do we? the only things I can think of that are generally available would most likely be available to both, excepting Medicaid in non-expansion states potentially

the working person has a better chance of keeping the various forms of welfare that do exist for them, too -- SNAP, for instance, which requires work or work activities for 20 hours a week to qualify

i was thinking of unemployment insurance specifically.

i know if i personally lost my job, i would absolutely not take a min wage job until unemployment ins ran out completely, simply because it'd be less money, and it'd impede my search for a comparable job.
---

the amount of UI you get is tied to your income and length of employment so I don't really see how that's useful in a discussion about minimum wage workers tbqh
---

Darkman124 posted...

i know if i personally lost my job, i would absolutely not take a min wage job until unemployment ins ran out completely, simply because it'd be less money, and it'd impede my search for a comparable job.

yeah, but no one is pretending you would be directly impacted by increases or decreases in the minimum wage

the problem with unemployed workers currently is that a large portion of them are not even eligible for UI, having not worked or worked recently enough to get it. this is related to the rise in long-term unemployment
---

Balrog0 posted...

the amount of UI you get is tied to your income and length of employment so I don't really see how that's useful in a discussion about minimum wage workers tbqh

well, the worker in Qmark's suggested dichotomy presumably is losing his low-paying job, no? i'm trying to factor in things that will matter in real world increases/decreases of min wage laws.

somewhat unrelated, i think clinton made a great point in the dem primaries about how different costs-of-living will drive needs for different min wage laws
---

I read his hypothetical as saying that a person who is currently not employable at 7.25 or 8.50 or whatever an hour but is capable of being employed at 4.50 an hour benefits from a lower minimum wage

I actually am kind of skeptical about that because I do not think wages are the primary driver of companies being so risk-averse in hiring but thats how I understand his claim
---

Balrog0 posted...

I read his hypothetical as saying that a person who is currently not employable at 7.25 or 8.50 or whatever an hour but is capable of being employed at 4.50 an hour benefits from a lower minimum wage

I actually am kind of skeptical about that because I do not think wages are the primary driver of companies being so risk-averse in hiring but thats how I understand his claim

As long as you have a pulse, you are employable at the minimum wage. I hate that 'argument'.
---