Message from @Techigami

2019-02-09 10:34:40 UTC

@wahx Firstly the minimum wage going up will always increase inflation as prices are risen, most of the time this does not stay with the inflation rate. The more people try to keep it with the inflation rate, the higher the inflation goes. As Visitor said it's an inflationary spiral. For example the minimum wage which should be with inflation is $22 per hour.

The higher the minimum wage is raised, the worse are the effects on poor people. This is because, on the one hand, the resulting overall unemployment is greater, while, on the other hand, the protection a lower wage provides against competition from higher-paid workers is more and more eroded. At today’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, workers earning that wage are secure against the competition of workers able to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour. If the minimum wage is increased to $10.10 per hour, and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them; many of them will have to consider them, because they will be unemployed. The effect is to expose the workers whose skills do not exceed a level corresponding to $7.25 per hour to the competition of better educated, more-skilled workers presently able to earn wage rates ranging from just above $7.25 to just below $10.10 per hour. The further effect could be that there will simply no longer be room in the economic system for the employment of minimally educated, low-skilled people.

sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

2019-02-09 10:34:52 UTC

We saw this in recession times( for example the great depression) and a good example is in Puerto Rico where the result of the minimum wage was massive business bankruptcy and high unemployment.

But there are additional, hidden costs of these min wages, which are more difficult to detect but perhaps more insidious. For example, one effect of a minimum wage is to reduce the availability of on-the-job training, since more resources are required simply to hire and retain a workforce. And further interventions in the labor market make it still more costly to employ labor. These burdens together reduce a firm's willingness to hire labourers and ,in the long run. must reduce the number of opportunities for those labourers to acquire valuable job skills. Far from increasing opportunities for the working poor, a minimum wage actually restricts their mobility.

Firms faced with minimum wage laws often substitute skilled for unskilled labor. **"A report from the Show-Me Institute offers an illustrative example: Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage of $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the "official data" this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed."**

sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

2019-02-09 10:58:49 UTC

Instead of raising the minimum wage, people should abolish it and let deflation happen. Which means much higher purchasing power for everyone, let the market determine the wages.If it wasn't for this dumb socialist intervention, we would have low prices and high purchasing power for everyone. The standard of living is not raised by arbitrary laws and decrees imposing higher wage rates, but by the rise in the productivity of labor, which increases the supply of goods relative to the supply of labor and thus reduces prices relative to wage rates, and thereby allows prices to rise by less than wages when the quantity of money and volume of spending in the economic system increase. And if the quantity of money was not increasing, a gold standard was in place the standard of living as I said earlier would skyrocket. And you may say a gold standard will increase the demand for new money which would be a problem however, any given supply of money is optimal in a free market since its relative value (purchasing power) reflects any supply issues. Money is not goods or services, bread.Money is only a medium of exchange, spending new money detracts from the production of real wealth, goods and services. There can never be a shortage of money.

wahx you can keep saying debunk-able things and not responding to my responses on privatised roads, the fact that the government did not create the internet and that the economy can/does exist and do well without a federal government.

sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

2019-02-09 10:59:15 UTC

sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

2019-02-09 10:59:46 UTC

We see multiple internet systems before '69 when the government classified, SAGE as you noted was made/developed by IBM who was contracted by the USAF.

sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

2019-02-09 11:00:21 UTC

There were other multiple research projects in the 50s by private UNIs, funding and private companies on the internet. If the government did not intervene, the internet would have probably came a decade or more earlier and more advance.