Rise of Minimum wage?

[Night Strike]

Why does the government get to dictate what people should be paid? Are people too stupid to find jobs that pay them what they want them to paid? Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

[tzor]

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure.

Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay.

Let's, for a moment, assume kentington's argument because I think there is a fundamental flaw in it. Assume a minimum wage job. Assume person works at minimum wage job. Logic demands (yes there are exceptions but unless you have a problem in life, the more you do a thing the better you get at it) that the person will get better at it. He will soon either out perform in that job or he will acquire the skills to be able to train others to do the job. In short the person will acquire the necessary assets that will demand a higher wage.

Ignoring the minimum wage, that is the cycle of corporate life. No one retires at the entry level job they started out with. Wage is proportional to experience and effectiveness.

Ironically, those areas where you may be doing the same thing at the point of retirement tend to be union jobs with big wage increases. The janitor who works in the New York City School System is making a lot of money compared to a lot of people who are just starting work.

Therefore the minimum wage is effectively the minimum experience level.

(Note also that the minimum wage is also the bored out of your mind level as well. Many "retired" people take positions as Wall Mart greeters, not because they need the money (it is nice) but because they want to step out of the "retirement" world, if only for a few hours a day and actually do something with other people that is interesting. The increase in the minimum wage results in a reduction of the available slots because it makes no sense to hire people at the higher level to simply say "Hi" and "Light bulbs are on aisle 7.")

Consider all the number of jobs that are no more due to the current wage system. There was a time when at the supermarket you had, on a given checkout line, one cashier and one bagger. The person who bagged the groceries allowed the line to go faster. Sometimes they worked in chains and he even brought your bags to your car. (What a lovely boy.) His level of experience didn't require him to understand the complexity of a cash register (which is getting more and more complicated every day) or know the various codes for all the fruits and vegetables that are not bar coded. Now there is one cashier and you either bag yourself or wait for her to do it for you, slowing down the line. We have even reached the point where self checkouts where several stations are coordinated by a single cashier are common. The number of young people employed has significantly dropped as a result. Why? Because supermarkets already run on razor thin margin lines.

EDIT: Citations were swapped.

[patches70]

minimum wage only allows for discrimination of unskilled workers. That's about all it does.

What is the largest segment of unemployed? Teens, 16-19 who at the moment are running a rate of around 23%*. Those people just entering the workforce and haven't yet acquired the needed skills. Raising the minimum wage will only increase that demographic of unemployed.

That demographic is going to be the highest even if there wasn't a minimum wage, for obvious reasons. But the minimum wage allows a business who could hire a worker for a job that is worth $6 an hour, but since the business isn't allowed to hire that cheaply, the business will simply not have that job available. "Sorry, you are unskilled and the jobs I have are too valuable to give to someone who is unskilled. Come back when you have the necessary skills."
Those lower wage jobs are a vehicle for workers to acquire the necessary skills to get higher paying jobs later. If they go away, even a percentage of those jobs going away, only hurts the whole, and disproportionately hurts minorities than any other segment.

It's even worse because this latest proposal is attempting to have future minimum wage increases tied to inflation. You all don't want that to happen. You might not realize it now, but you will understand soon enough if that goes through.


* https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 3238,d.aWM
(That's just the "official" unemployment numbers. Some think the real unemployment is even worse.)

I'm confident that the combined consequences of the ACA, the massive debt, out of control spending, impossible promises, the stifling taxes (which will only get worse) and all the other poorly devised (yet well intended often times) policies will have a devastating affect through 2013 -2015.
Hopefully, everyone will be using the time now to get out of debt, stay out of debt and acquire actual useful skills. Otherwise, the lean years are a coming, such that we'll look back at these days and remember fondly- "Those were the good old days".

Part of me can hardly wait. In such times there are great opportunities for those who have positioned themselves wisely. While another part of me can only sigh and remember we reap what we sow.

[PLAYER57832]

Why does the government get to dictate what people should be paid? Are people too stupid to find jobs that pay them what they want them to paid?

People lack the power to fight. An employer can, and some will, take any measures to exploit workers in order to fill their own pocket. Some people steal goods, some people steal employee;s time.. .unless there are laws that are enforced.

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.


A government's job is to protect the weak from abuse, not control every aspect of people's lives.

Oh, and try looking historically at what happens to societies that have an extreme disparity of wealth. Or I can just tell you.. they fail.

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah the question was not whether or not minimum wage should exist but rather whether or not it should be raised, right?

[kentington]

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure.

Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay.

Let's, for a moment, assume kentington's argument because I think there is a fundamental flaw in it. Assume a minimum wage job. Assume person works at minimum wage job. Logic demands (yes there are exceptions but unless you have a problem in life, the more you do a thing the better you get at it) that the person will get better at it. He will soon either out perform in that job or he will acquire the skills to be able to train others to do the job. In short the person will acquire the necessary assets that will demand a higher wage.

Ignoring the minimum wage, that is the cycle of corporate life. No one retires at the entry level job they started out with. Wage is proportional to experience and effectiveness.

Ironically, those areas where you may be doing the same thing at the point of retirement tend to be union jobs with big wage increases. The janitor who works in the New York City School System is making a lot of money compared to a lot of people who are just starting work.

Therefore the minimum wage is effectively the minimum experience level.

Did you intend for this post to find a flaw in my argument or in FunkyTerrance's?
If it was against my argument I don't see where the flaw is in it from what you posted. If you meant it for my argument I will go through and show, but I don't want to do that in case you meant FT's.

[Night Strike]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Minimum wage jobs are for people, especially young people, to earn some spending cash and gain workforce experience for moving up to a career later in life. Continually raising the minimum wage simply provides fewer of those opportunities, which actually will keep prices down over an employee's working life as they weren't able to start out at the lowest of levels at a young enough time. If you want wages to go up, you allow employers to pay young people rock-bottom wages as those jobs aren't designed to be lived on anyway.

[Symmetry]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Minimum wage jobs are for people, especially young people, to earn some spending cash and gain workforce experience for moving up to a career later in life. Continually raising the minimum wage simply provides fewer of those opportunities, which actually will keep prices down over an employee's working life as they weren't able to start out at the lowest of levels at a young enough time. If you want wages to go up, you allow employers to pay young people rock-bottom wages as those jobs aren't designed to be lived on anyway.

Hilarious- what skills do you think they're picking up? Why do you think only young people are in these positions?

[PLAYER57832]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

Minimum wage jobs are for people, especially young people, to earn some spending cash and gain workforce experience for moving up to a career later in life. Continually raising the minimum wage simply provides fewer of those opportunities, which actually will keep prices down over an employee's working life as they weren't able to start out at the lowest of levels at a young enough time. If you want wages to go up, you allow employers to pay young people rock-bottom wages as those jobs aren't designed to be lived on anyway.

No, in most cases, young people, trainees can be paid less. Even professional in-home care workers don't have to be paid minimum wage.

Further more. the reason folks like you can trot out the idea that only a few people get minimum wage is because anyone making even a penny more is technically no longer making minimum wage. The number of people making under $8 or $9 an hour is close to a fourth of the population... and a LARGE percentage of them are women, not teenage kids.

[Nobunaga]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

Minimum wage jobs are for people, especially young people, to earn some spending cash and gain workforce experience for moving up to a career later in life. Continually raising the minimum wage simply provides fewer of those opportunities, which actually will keep prices down over an employee's working life as they weren't able to start out at the lowest of levels at a young enough time. If you want wages to go up, you allow employers to pay young people rock-bottom wages as those jobs aren't designed to be lived on anyway.

No, in most cases, young people, trainees can be paid less. Even professional in-home care workers don't have to be paid minimum wage.

Further more. the reason folks like you can trot out the idea that only a few people get minimum wage is because anyone making even a penny more is technically no longer making minimum wage. The number of people making under $8 or $9 an hour is close to a fourth of the population... and a LARGE percentage of them are women, not teenage kids.

... Where's my violin?

[AndyDufresne]

... Where's my violin?

Back in the 1950's where that meme was generated I think.


--Andy

[Symmetry]

Ouch. Nobunaga owned by Player and Andy in turn.

[Night Strike]

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

Why not? If the minimum wage is designed to get hard working people more money, why isn't it raised to a much higher number? I thought there were no consequences to raising the minimum wage other than the evil rich bosses won't be able to be paid as much, so why are we stopping at some randomly low number? Why don't we pick an arbitrary higher number?

[stahrgazer]

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

Why not? If the minimum wage is designed to get hard working people more money, why isn't it raised to a much higher number? I thought there were no consequences to raising the minimum wage other than the evil rich bosses won't be able to be paid as much, so why are we stopping at some randomly low number? Why don't we pick an arbitrary higher number?

Actually, a higher number would be more helpful to those who are "barely above minimum" now.

What happens when minimum wage rises is that the cost of everyday items such as a loaf of bread also rises, while the salaries of those who just broke past the "minimum" bubble does NOT typically rise by a commensurate amount... so a new worker will now be paid as much as a worker who's been there a few years and the worker who's been employed at his place of work for a few years who finally thought he saw some relief, is now going to have to re-budget to buy food for the table, gas for the car, and will not be able to buy the extras he thought he'd be able to buy once he finally broke thru the OLD minimum wage bubble. The bubble just rose back up to snatch him back into barely-above-poverty once more.

But if the minimum wage were to rise sufficiently high, the there-for-a-few-years worker would likely ALSO get a raise (or maybe get a raise and no new hires.)

I've supported alot of Obama's ideas, but I don't support this one.

[Night Strike]

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

Why not? If the minimum wage is designed to get hard working people more money, why isn't it raised to a much higher number? I thought there were no consequences to raising the minimum wage other than the evil rich bosses won't be able to be paid as much, so why are we stopping at some randomly low number? Why don't we pick an arbitrary higher number?

Actually, a higher number would be more helpful to those who are "barely above minimum" now.

What happens when minimum wage rises is that the cost of everyday items such as a loaf of bread also rises, while the salaries of those who just broke past the "minimum" bubble does NOT typically rise by a commensurate amount... so a new worker will now be paid as much as a worker who's been there a few years and the worker who's been employed at his place of work for a few years who finally thought he saw some relief, is now going to have to re-budget to buy food for the table, gas for the car, and will not be able to buy the extras he thought he'd be able to buy once he finally broke thru the OLD minimum wage bubble. The bubble just rose back up to snatch him back into barely-above-poverty once more.

But if the minimum wage were to rise sufficiently high, the there-for-a-few-years worker would likely ALSO get a raise (or maybe get a raise and no new hires.)

I've supported alot of Obama's ideas, but I don't support this one.

Precisely the problem with constantly raising the minimum wage. Furthermore, if it's tied to inflation, forget ever getting a merit-based or annual raise from your company: the government will mandate your raise for you. That's why we must actually combat the cause of the wage problem of inflation rather than just throw out more money to people.

[BigBallinStalin]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

On the contrary, the $20/hour example stresses the implications of pricing the supply of a good (labor) beyond its market clearing price. When price floor is imposed by the government within a relatively free market, then at least be aware of the poor outcomes (e.g. decreased quality, higher prices in other areas, etc.).

The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults---which is easier than addressing the problems of one's deeply held emotions.

[tzor]

Hilarious- what skills do you think they're picking up? Why do you think only young people are in these positions?

They pick up lots of skills; skills that you and I might take for granted. Of course the older you are the more likely you might have picked up those skills. There might be exceptions, I suppose.

[tzor]

Back in the 1950's where that meme was generated I think.

Wait, I thought that decade brought the violin as an instrument of torture ...
Oh wait, Jack Benny was in the 1940's ... never mind.

[stahrgazer]

Hilarious- what skills do you think they're picking up? Why do you think only young people are in these positions?

They pick up lots of skills; skills that you and I might take for granted. Of course the older you are the more likely you might have picked up those skills. There might be exceptions, I suppose.

Skills like getting up on time. Diplomacy with your boss. Dealing with customers, or in the case of the 7.25/9.00/20.00/100.00 ditch diggers, learning how to dig a ditch better, faster, and without the sides caving back into the pile to have to do it all over again.

Counting money out seems to be a skill many cashiers cannot handle, for example. Give them 31.75 for a bill of $26.73 and they just cannot seem to realize that that means you want $5.02 in change.

In the case of a lowly retail worker, learning where the stock is and how the store wants that stock repriced, refaced, or inventoried at the end of the shift/week/month/year.

Would you feel better having a fresh-out-of-law-school handling your legal business or do you want someone with experience?

If your point is that you don't need experience for a minimum wage job, then the point that the minimum wage shouldn't be raised is even MORE valid. Give the extra pay to more workers or to more experienced workers who can take a little more of the slack from the boss.

Raising the bottom end too high squishes the economy every bit as much as raising the top end too high; the difference is, it actually hurts those on the lower end more than it helps, because what it helps most is: It helps CAUSE inflation.

[Juan_Bottom]

Historically speaking, the minimum wage was much higher than it is now, during a period of growth. Just using an inflation adjustment shows that the minimum wage should be at least $10.55 now. Americans, you're not saving any money by allowing corporations to pay people minimum wage. Those minimum wage earners have to make up the loss by being supported by taxpayers through the dole, or through loans. So if private industries can't 'make enough profits' while paying people a living wage, then the government should socialize those private industries.

http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine ... ted_States

Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour.

[Night Strike]

So Juan, why aren't you adamant about stopping inflation since inflation is the root problem of minimum wage not paying enough in today's society? If the government weren't devaluing our dollars so much, we would never have to raise the minimum wage.

[BigBallinStalin]

Historically speaking, the minimum wage was much higher than it is now, during a period of growth. Just using an inflation adjustment shows that the minimum wage should be at least $10.55 now. Americans, you're not saving any money by allowing corporations to pay people minimum wage. Those minimum wage earners have to make up the loss by being supported by taxpayers through the dole, or through loans. So if private industries can't 'make enough profits' while paying people a living wage, then the government should socialize those private industries.

http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine ... ted_States

Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour.

[stahrgazer]

Another problem with "minimum wage" is similar to a problem with some education systems.

It's like "Pass/fail" rather than a scale of "A to F" - those who work really hard and well won't get as recognized because those who're just shuffling by, one half-step ahead of a pink slip, are being paid so much.

"Just bodies" are okay in some aspects, but not as okay as having folks who really want to work hard; "minimum wage" takes away some of the incentive to work really hard.

and as I said, similarly, some folks argue against schools that want to go to a pass/fail type standard as not sufficiently recognizing high achievers.

[PLAYER57832]

Furthermore, why should the government tell employers what to pay regardless of the ability of their business to stay open? If the government can mandate a pay floor overall, why not also pay floors in mid-level jobs? Or pay caps? When does the government control end? When does the marketplace get to determine how much jobs are worth and people are allowed to have the freedom to figure out what pay they want?

The minimum wage is just that... a bare minimum beneath which hiring someone is dragging down society for the benefit of the owner or a few in that business. When someone is paid such a low wage that they cannot support themselves on that wage, then other people in society have to support them. They don't pay the taxes they could, don't buy as many products. Instead of contributing to society, they are a drain... to fill the pockets of a few greedy individuals at the top.

And when the employer can't afford to pay a cart pusher $20 an hour, they remove the position and everyone has to go get their own carts or other workers have to do it in addition to their roles. And this causes even fewer people to be employed. Employers aren't just made of money and can dole out whatever the government decides to dictate at that period of time.

Since no one is proposing anything close to a $20 wage, your argument is idiotic... at best.

On the contrary, the $20/hour example stresses the implications of pricing the supply of a good (labor) beyond its market clearing price. When price floor is imposed by the government within a relatively free market, then at least be aware of the poor outcomes (e.g. decreased quality, higher prices in other areas, etc.).

Setting an ultimate bottom doesn't as you and Nightstrike wish to imply destroy a valid free market.

That said, jobs are not truly free market items. Financial service provider salaries are a good example. Why are their salaries so much higher than a world reknown biologist? Because financial service providers hold the money. It used to be that people made money off real property they owned. Now they do it from skimming money off other folks' earnings... and often they make out whether their "customers" make money or not.

Yet... biologists have a lot more to do with keeping our world functioning and safe than any financial advisors.

Those same advisors would pay all they have to have just one more fire fighter, or a few minutes quicker response after a tragedy impacts them. Yet... up until that point, they will protest paying a dime more for fire services. THAT is the kind of back-ass thinking that has to change.

The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

No, the point is that your idea of setting a person's worth is no different than old time monarches declaring that they can eat and have a castle while serfs can just try to survive off the leanings.. because God mandated it so.

The market doesn't set human worth, it really doesn't set the worth of employment at the bottom OR the very top.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults---which is easier than addressing the problems of one's deeply held emotions.

Try again. You lose.
Distorting this into a debate over $100 wages for burger flippers is your attempt to play on people's fears, far more of an emotional response than my facts preseted honestly.

[Nobunaga]

There is probably no law more popular and less questioned by liberals than minimum wage laws. Tell a liberal that you are opposed to minimum wage laws, and he or she will look at you as if you are a heartless ignoramus. I’ll bet you could not find a single liberal who has the least degree of doubt about the wisdom and effectiveness of minimum wage laws. Being in favor of minimum wage laws gives you the satisfaction of thinking you’ve done something good even if the actual results are harmful.

Liberalism is about feeling good about yourself. It is public policy based on self-indulgence. In liberal never-never land, intentions are all that matter. Intentions are the be-all-and-end-all of public policy choices. Results be damned.

There are people who would like to work for $4 an hour, and there are employers who would like to hire them for that wage. However, for them to enter into such a transaction is a criminal act. Some far-away clueless politician has arbitrarily decided that $4 an hour is not fair and not enough to live on.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/1 ... mum-wage/1
The clearest evidence for the damage done by the minimum wage laws is the unemployment rates for teenagers, particularly minority teenagers. Today the overall unemployment rate in the U.S. is 7.9 percent. For those 16-19, the rate is more than twice as high (20.8 percent) and for black teenagers the rate is more than four times as high (37.8 percent).

... But think about it - high unemployment rates help Democrats. The fact that blacks are harder hit is only a bonus. It represents political opportunity for them. Is the introduction of a higher minimum wage and the resulting increase in unemployment not intentional?