Exposing Three of the Biggest Republican Lies About the Minimum Wage

raise-minimum-wageRepublicans are full of a lot of rhetoric and keep up with it as I might, I still have trouble.  After all, there are seemingly endless amounts of delusional thoughts spewing from their mouths and only one of me to keep up with them all.

And while much of what they stand for seems more like a sick joke written for a satire piece rather than an actual political belief, their absolutely ignorant take on our minimum wage is the one that often drives me the most insane.

Now granted, a lot of their ideology is laughable at best, but their propaganda about the minimum wage is as pathetic as it is unfounded.

So I felt like going through three of the ones I hear most often from conservatives and applying what some people might call “logic” (with a little math as well — something Republicans don’t seem very good at) to counter their ridiculous claims.

*For this article, I’m sticking with the federal minimum wage of $7.25.  I’m aware some states have higher minimums.

1) The one I hear the most is that “the minimum wage kills jobs.”  Which I guess is true.  If we cut the minimum wage in half, we could create two jobs for the “price” of one.  That’s “twice” as many jobs, right?

Well, it sure is.  Only—they’ll pay somewhere around $3.63 per hour.

I’m sorry, but if that’s the job our minimum wage is “destroying,” then good riddance.  People can’t get by on $7.25 an hour, let alone less than that.

Just to let you wrap your head around what $7.25 an hour translates into, here are the numbers:

$7.25 x 40 hours per week= $290 per week/$1,257 per month/$15,080 per year—all numbers before taxes.  

They also try and argue that this unfairly makes it harder for younger people to find work as many of them lack any job skills, and for their “level” $7.25 is too high an hourly wage.  Some have even argued for an alternate minimum wage for younger people.

Yes, by all means, let’s start using age as a means at which to discriminate.  Then let’s also falsely assume that all younger people in the workforce (say 16-20) are only working for “party money.”  To say nothing about the older workers who would face a harder task at finding some of these low-skill jobs if employers realized they could pay someone under the age of 20 less than they would have to pay someone who was 21 or older.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with giving employers a legal way to discriminate based on age?

2) The next ridiculous argument I’ve heard recently from Republicans (with the national fast food strikes happening) is that raising the minimum wage to $11 per hour would create “$11 hamburgers.”

Ah yes, the conservative math skills are on full display.  Why would a 30% increase in the minimum wage cause about a 400% increase in the cost of fast food?  If you adjusted prices by even 40% for the increase in the minimum wage, that $1 cheeseburger is now $1.40.  The $5 value meal is now $7.  Both higher, but nowhere near the ridiculous claims that a slight increase in the minimum wage would suddenly increase prices on some goods by 300-400%.  It’s absurd fear mongering.

And let’s not forget that the more people make, the more they’ll spend.  Being that consumer spending is the real driving force behind our economy and creating jobs (not tax cuts as Republicans want you to believe), consumers with more money to spend means businesses making more money.  And I promise you, consumer spending habits prove that they’ll spend much more than they probably should, which will equalize that “job-killing” hike in minimum wage.

If we focus on creating policies which bring some of the lower-paid Americans up to levels where they had more to spend, that expands the consumer base—which is good for both the worker and the business.  Think of it as “spending money to make money.”

But wait, don’t Republicans claim most jobs pay more than the minimum wage already?  So why would a hike be that big of a deal?

3) Which leads me to #3.  Their claim that there’s no reason to raise the minimum wage because most jobs pay much more than the federal minimum already.

Well, then if that’s the case—great.  Raising the minimum wage should only yield positives, right?  I mean, if businesses pay much more than the federal minimum, a raise in that wage will only impact a small percentage of the workforce anyway.  So what are these businesses whining about?

Or could it be that more Americans earn minimum wage than Republicans want the rest of us to believe?

As I think it was Chris Rock who said, when someone is paying you the minimum wage what they’re saying is they would like to pay you less, they’re just not legally allowed to do so.

Which is the truth.  Millions of Americans are paid the minimum wage, and millions of these people would be paid even less except their employers are legally prevented from doing so.

Besides, do you think if we eliminated the minimum wage, allowing employers to pay workers less would really translate into better prices for consumers?  Prices would continue to go up and that “savings” would simply go into the hands of the executives of the company.

They wouldn’t create more jobs.  Demand creates jobs and a reduction in the minimum wage doesn’t do anything to increase demand.  In fact, it would decrease demand and most likely hurt business.

It would also drive millions more to relying on government programs to survive.

And while Republicans harp on and on about welfare and how many millions of Americans are on government assistance, they fail to address the reality that many of those who rely on the government are working.  They just earn such a crappy wage that even after working full time they don’t make enough to support their families without help.

Imagine if every company that paid its workers minimum wage decided instead to pay those people enough to where they don’t need to rely on government assistance.  How many millions would that save taxpayers?

So while it makes for a great talking point for Republicans to blame “lazy moochers” for relying on the government, millions of Americans are condemned to rely on these programs due to the greed of these big corporations that refuse to pay their workers a decent wage.

But at the end of the day, it’s the lies stemming from Republicans (lies that make absolutely no sense) which keep ignorance about our minimum wage fresh on the minds of right-wing voters.

It’s just a good thing for Republican politicians they’ve conditioned these people to the point that many of them are simply incapable of thinking for themselves.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Michael Siever

    Instead of raising the minimum wage, why impose a maximum wage on CEOs? As Lugwig von Mises said, CEOs are just glorified consultants, and deserve to make no earn than 20 to 25 times what their bottom level employees earn. If CEOs want good pay, then they should have to pay their employees livable wages to get their millions/billions…

    • Andre Salazar

      Do you know what a supply shortage is?

    • Mskby

      I just read (few days ago) that they are trying to pass a law in Switzerland that would limit the CEO pay to 12x the lowest paid employee. I think this should be the law throughout the civilized world.

  • Scott Simms

    I will pay $10 to pick up all the dog sh!t in my back yard. I have a couple of Great Danes. Too little money for you sunshine? How about $30 then? At some point you will accept my offer and lower yourself to pick up my dog’s Shiite droppings. Lets say you’ll pick it up for $100. But the guy down the street will pick it up for $90. You lose. If another will pick it up for $20 and no one else will do it for less, then the market rate for picking up dog sh!t is $20.

    Another example. I am looking for five guys to be bra inspectors at the Victoria’s Secret fashion show on the the actual ladies. I am paying $0.01. I have no difficulty filling those positions. The free market minimum wage to perform this task is one cent.

    In North Dakota the free market minimum wage is $15 an hour at Wendy’s and every other fast food place. Why is that? More jobs available than workers. Hmm.

    The federal minimum wage of $7.25 x 2080 full time hours = the poverty limit. It is not intended to be a living wage.

    So lets try one more experiment. Lets increase minimum wage to $25/hour. How much does a Big Mac cost now? It would cost about $17 for a combo. Wow! That is some big inflation. What happens to the purchasing power of those minimum wage earners? Hint: it’s the same. Something Forward Progressive communists will never understand. Economics is an amazing subject not many communists ever mastered. Sorry, but thems the facts

    • Charles Vincent

      It’s the same reason they try to boycott places that pay minimum wage like walmart, it’s because they can’t see the long term ramifications of how doing so on a large scale would put those they want to help out of work and put them in a worse position than they were in previously. They are to myopic to see the big picture you and so many others have tried to show them.

      • 65snake

        The reason we don’t see the picture you and others are trying to “show” us is because it doesn’t actually exist in reality.

        Perhaps you should try a remedial history lesson, focusing on the industrial revolution, the robber barons of the old west, the business practices leading up to the great depression of the 1930’s, and the rise of unions.

        We DO see the big picture, you are the ones living in denial.

      • Charles Vincent

        Keep telling yourself that. When you’ve run a business you’ll know it does happen.
        “Perhaps you should try a remedial history lesson, focusing on the industrial revolution, the robber barons of the old west, the business practices leading up to the great depression of the 1930’s, and the rise of unions.”
        This isn’t remotely accurate, you need to take your own advice on our economical history.

      • 65snake

        “This isn’t remotely accurate” Really? Please, enlighten us on just one inaccuracy. This should be entertaining.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well where should I start…
        How about with the fed they are the entity that caused the Great Depression because they over the course of two years reduced the monetary supply in the economy by 1/3.
        Lets discuss John D. Rockefeller. He started out dirt poor and he made money by being a screwed business man, and by being smarter, and more innovative than his competition. He also pioneered some big ideas on supply chain management and that helped him provide an inexpensive product to consumers of his product. Look it up if you want to know more Wikipedia has a pretty good history on him and his company standard oil.

        Next we can discuss Henry Ford. He was also poor and he revolutionize mass production. This made his product less expensive as well he also payed his workers $5/day, this was more than double what other companies were paying employees. For also was the first to standardize the 40 hour work week. Wiki has a good history on him as well if you want to now more.

      • 65snake

        Okay, first two paragraphs…nope. No.

        As to Ford….exactly. Ford proves the point that paying workers a living wage and fair hours is not actually damaging to the company.

        His business model shows your assumptions to be false. Perhaps you should have thought it through before choosing him as an example?

      • Charles Vincent

        now if you want to talk Robber barons these three come to mind;
        Daniel Drew – Robber baron involved in the stock manipulation of the Erie Railroad with Fisk and Gould
        James Fisk – Robber baron involved in the stock manipulation of the Erie Railroad with Gould and Drew
        Jay Gould – Robber baron involved in the stock manipulation of the Erie Railroad with Fisk and Drew

      • Charles Vincent

        OK first two paragraphs yes it happened;

        “There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929. These includethe structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the manner in which the downturn spread from
        country to country. In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like major bank failures and the stock market crash. In contrast, monetarist economists (such as Barry Eichengreen, Milton Friedman and Peter Temin) point to monetary factors such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain’s decision to return to the gold standard at pre–World War I parities. Monetarists, including Milton Friedman, argue that the Great Depression was mainly caused by monetary contraction, the consequence of poor policy-making by the American Federal Reserve System and continued crisis in the banking system.[23][24] In this view, the Federal Reserve, by not acting, allowed the money supply as measured by the M2
        to shrink by one-third from 1929–1933, thereby transforming a normal
        recession into the Great Depression. Friedman argued that the downward
        turn in the economy, starting with the stock market crash, would have
        been just another recession.” excerpts from wiki on the great depression.

        Fords model shows that your assertion about robber barons is false.

        Ford also had some rather unsavory stipulations attached to those wages fro his employees. and neither the wage he paid nor the 40 hour work week were instituted by government regulation in fact they happens almost 10 years Roosevelt;

        The Securities Act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. This was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. Though amended, key provisions of both Acts are still in force. Federal insurance of bank deposits was provided by the FDIC, and the Glass–Steagall Act. The institution of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) remains a controversial act to this day. The NRA made a number of sweeping changes to the American economy until it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1935.

        CCC workers constructing road, 1933. Over 3 million unemployed young men were taken out of the cities and placed into 2600+ work camps managed by
        the CCC.[86]

        Early changes by the Roosevelt administration included:

        Instituting regulations to fight deflationary “cut-throat competition” through the NRA.

        Setting minimum prices and wages, labor standards, and competitive conditions in all industries through the NRA.

        Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class.

        Cutting farm production to raise prices through the Agricultural Adjustment Act and its successors.

        Forcing businesses to work with government to set price codes through the NRA.”

      • 65snake

        wow. Wikipedia. That’s such a great, accurate source – not. Do you know how it works?

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s an excepted source for college papers there are others that match the information I posted.

      • Charles Vincent

        and in fact on the wiki history of the great depression they present all the theories and generally accepted causes of the great depression.

      • Charles Vincent

        Since you think Wiki isn’t an accurate source here is a portion of a speech given my Ben Bernake the sitting head of the federal reserve;

        “What caused the Depression? This question is a difficult one, but answering it is important if we are to draw the right lessons from the experience for economic policy. Solving the puzzle of the Depression is also crucial to the field of economics itself because of the light the solution would shed on our basic understanding of how the economy works.

        During the Depression years and for many decades afterward, economists disagreed sharply on the sources of the economic and financial collapse of the 1930s. In contrast, during the past twenty years or so economic historians have come to a broad consensus about thecauses of the Depression. A widening of the geographic focus of Depression research deserves much of the credit for this breakthrough. Before the 1980s, research on the causes of the Depression had considered primarily the experience of the United States. This attention to the U.S. case was appropriate to some degree, as the U.S. economy was then, as it is today, the world’s largest; the decline in output and employment in the United States during the 1930s was especially severe; and many economists have argued that, to an important extent, the worldwide Depression began in the United States, spreading from here to other countries (Romer, 1993). However, in much the same way that a medical researcher cannot reliably infer the causes of an illness by studying one patient, diagnosing the causes of the Depression is easier when we have more patients (in this case, more national economies) to study. To explain the current consensus on the causes of the Depression, I will first describe the debate as it existed before 1980, and then discuss how the recent focus on international aspects of the Depression and the comparative analysis of the experiences of different countries have helped to resolve that debate.

        I have already mentioned the sharp deflation of the price level that occurred during the contraction phase of the Depression, by far the mostsevere episode of deflation experienced in the United States before or since. Deflation, like inflation, tends to be closely linked to changes in the national money supply, defined as the sum of currency and bank deposits outstanding, and such was the case in the Depression. Like real output and prices, the U.S. money supply fell about one-third between 1929 and 1933, rising in subsequent years as output and prices rose.

        While the fact that money, prices, and output all declined rapidly in the early years of the Depression is undeniable, the interpretation of that fact has been the subject of much controversy. Indeed, historically, much of the debate on the causes of the Great Depression has centered on the role of monetary factors, including both monetary policy and other influences on the national money supply, such as the condition of the banking system. Views have changed over time. During the Depression itself, and in several decades following, most economists argued that monetary factors were not an important cause of the Depression. For example, many observers pointed to the fact that nominal interest rates were close to zero during much of the Depression, concluding that monetary policy had been about as easy as possible yet had produced no tangible benefits to the economy. The attempt to use monetary policy to extricate an economy from a deep depression was often compared to “pushing on a string.”

        During the first decades after the Depression, most economists looked to developments on the real side of the economy for explanations, rather than to monetary factors. Some argued, for example, that overinvestment and overbuilding had taken place during the ebullient 1920s, leading to a crash when the returns on those investments proved to be less than expected. Another once-popular theory was that a chronic problem of “under-consumption”–the inability of households to purchase enough goods and services to utilize the economy’s productive capacity–had precipitated the slump.

        However, in 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz transformed the debate about the Great Depression. That year saw the publication oftheir now-classic book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. The Monetary History, the name by which the book is instantly recognized by any macroeconomist, examined in great detail the relationship between changes in the national money stock–whether determined by conscious policy or by more impersonal forces such as changes in the banking system–and changes in national income and prices. The broader objective of the book was to understand how monetary forces had influenced the U.S. economy over a nearly a century. In the process of pursuing this general objective, however, Friedman and Schwartz offered important new evidence and arguments about the role of monetary factors in the Great Depression. In contradiction to the prevalent view of the time, that money and monetary policy played at most a purely passive role in the Depression, Friedman and Schwartz argued that “the [economic] contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces” (Friedman and Schwartz, 1963, p. 300).

        To support their view that monetary forces caused the Great Depression, Friedman and Schwartz revisited the historical record and identified a series of errors–errors of both commission and omission–made by the Federal Reserve in the late 1920s and early 1930s.According to Friedman and Schwartz, each of these policy mistakes led to an undesirable tightening of monetary policy, as reflected in sharp declines in the money supply. Drawing on their historical evidence about the effects of money on the economy, Friedman and Schwartz argued that the declines in the money stock generated by Fed actions–or inactions–could account for the drops in prices and output that subsequently occurred.2

        Friedman and Schwartz emphasized at least four major errors by U.S. monetary policymakers. The Fed’s first grave mistake, in their view, was the tightening of monetary policy that began in the spring of 1928 and continued until the stock market crash of October 1929 (see Hamilton, 1987, or Bernanke, 2002a, for further discussion). This tightening of monetary policy in 1928 did not seem particularly justified by the macroeconomic environment: The economy was only just emerging from a recession, commodity prices were declining sharply, and there was little hint of inflation. Why then did the Federal Reserve raise interest rates in 1928? The principal reason was the Fed’s ongoing concern about speculation on Wall Street. Fed policymakers drewa sharp distinction between “productive” (that is, good) and “speculative” (bad) uses of credit, and they were concerned that bank lending to brokers and investors was fueling a speculative wave in the stock market. When the Fed’s attempts to persuade banks not to lend forspeculative purposes proved ineffective, Fed officials decided to dissuade lending directly by raising the policy interest rate.

        The market crash of October 1929 showed, if anyone doubted it, that aconcerted effort by the Fed can bring down stock prices. But the cost of this “victory” was very high. According to Friedman and Schwartz, the Fed’s tight-money policies led to the onset of a recession in August1929, according to the official dating by the National Bureau of
        Economic Research. The slowdown in economic activity, together with high interest rates, was in all likelihood the most important source of the stock market crash that followed in October. In other words, the market crash, rather than being the cause of the Depression, as popular legend has it, was in fact largely the result of an economic slowdown and the inappropriate monetary policies that preceded it. Of course, the stock market crash only worsened the economic situation, hurting consumer and business confidence and contributing to a still deeper downturn in 1930.

        The second monetary policy action identified by Friedman and Schwartzoccurred in September and October of 1931. At the time, as I will discuss in more detail later, the United States and the great majority of other nations were on the gold standard, a system in which the value of each currency is expressed in terms of ounces of gold. Under the gold standard, central banks stood ready to maintain the fixed values oftheir currencies by offering to trade gold for money at the legally determined rate of exchange.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Now lets discuss what business practices caused the depression. Here is the short version;

        “The correction of the early 1930s was the combination of delayed effects of the First World War (a US agricultural boom that had led to overinvestment and distorted prices and had already ended in a bust in the 1920s) and the bursting of various bubbles blown during the Jazz-Age-version of bubble finance, such as the foreign bond market that provided funding for the purchase of then-sizable US exports, and the hot-money driven domestic equity boom. These distortions did not come about because of the gold standard but despite of the gold standard, which had been severely weakened as a disciplinary force not least due to the growing role of the Fed since 1914, and in particular since the central bank funded the war effort through money-printing in 1917-1918. By 1929 liquidation and correction were unavoidable. But what should have been a quick and decisive cleansing was turned into a drawn-out economic catastrophe by bad policy. First, there was economic nationalism – tariffs and other forms of protectionism – and then Roosevelt’s disastrous interventionism and relentless tinkering with the economy. As Stockman illustrates, Roosevelt did not enact a Keynesian textbook program at all. In fact, the clueless president had no coherent program whatsoever but instead implemented the type of potpourri of populist anti-market measures so fashionable at the time among Europe’s fascist leaders: odd infrastructure programs, price and wage fixing, state-directed resource use.

      • 65snake

        Nice, long copy/paste. Source?

      • Charles Vincent

        I told you Wikipedia learn to read. I even ” ” the Copy paste so you could see that it was source material

    • Charles Vincent

      Technically they are socialists if you order that scale according to bastiat as he defined it in the law. But socialism inevitably ends in communism.

      • Ian Davis

        Pretty sure that the communists have never run Sweden, or Norway, or even Britain, all of which have or have had socialist economies (in that they don’t deny their people such luxuries as healthcare, social security, decent education, etc.). Or is that what you mean by communism?

      • Charles Vincent

        No those are not examples. They have socialist workings. Norway and Sweden both have high income tax rates as well if I am not mistaken. Soviet Russia is an example of communism, at least in my estimation.

      • 65snake

        So, according to your post, they will inevitably become communist. Did you forget what you wrote? Or did you copy/paste from elsewhere without really understanding what it said?

      • Charles Vincent

        No I didn’t copy paste and even if I had I would understand more than you. The playground called they need their best insult artist back.

      • Eoin Maloney

        I have heard better comebacks from a turkey sandwich, Chuckie-boy.

      • Charles Vincent

        Did you read your post before you posted it? Turkey sandwiches seem to like you as we’ll. C Wut I Did thar…..

      • 65snake

        Ah, forget him, Eoin. He doesn’t want facts, he wants to stay in his bubble catching the table scraps of his corporate masters, laboring under the delusion that if he just works hard enough he may become one of the overlords himself.

      • Charles Vincent

        Classic liberal move can’t refute the argument against you so you start name calling, marginalizing, etc…GG

    • Shari D

      You’re falling into the same old trap of Republican math – that an increase in the LABOR cost of producing a Big Mac is the ENTIRE cost of producing a Big Mac. The cost includes many other items, like the actual cost of the raw materials, packaging, overhead other than wages, etc., than simply the wage of the workers who make it and sell it to you. Try that math again, this time do it right.

      • Carl Vermeulen

        Yes but YOU are forgetting that the packaging, the ‘materials’ are also made by people and even the overhead, electricity and building and maintenance are all dependent on labor costs. If people want to make more money the best way is the way our grandparents did it: hard work and saving.

      • 65snake

        Great. We’ll pay you $1 per hour, and you can tell us all about how great you’re doing because you work hard and save.

      • Charles Vincent

        Labor is the largest of the costs a business can control, followed closely by food cost control through waste reduction. Minimum wage harms those workers whom are least productive.

    • In Australia (I live here) the minimum wage is over $17 an hour and the Big Mac costs about 70 cents more than in the US. On top of the wage, you also get free healthcare and a retirement plan. You know what happens when people get paid $20 instead of $8? They spend it, stimulating the economy and creating more jobs.

      • Andre Salazar

        The economic stimulus argument is both flawed in theory AND not found in the academic literature on the subject. It is essentially a phantom created by think tanks, and a terrible one at that. The idea of money stimulating an economy rides on the idea of it being NEW money. That is it has to be money that was not available before entering in by different means. This could be through the creation of new money (Fed) or through using future money (debt). The fact is that EVEN IF the minimum wage acted as a simple transfer of funds from the rich to the poor it couldn’t have this effect. This money already exists in the economy and is being used for various things.

        And please don’t say that the rich aren’t using it, that it is just sitting in the bank. If it is in the bank that means its going to useful endeavors that are making peoples lives better. Things like home, car and small business loans.

      • I’m not sure what ‘academic literature’ you’re referring to (is it written by those leftist commie university professors?), but rich people don’t get rich by spending money, while people of more modest means need to spend their money – and locally.

      • Oldetooles

        Not a fair analogy; every American can tell you the fact is, in Australia they use Kangaroo meat, which is cheaper! LOL!

      • from what I’ve read, the US is phasing out their angus beef burgers, but AU is keeping them.

      • gemma liar

        which extrapolates into FOX ”news” now having Hannity-esque ‘proof’ that Australia is a socialist/communist country full of moochers who hate jeeeeesus

  • Scott Simms

    Btw, a Cheeseburger Royale in Zurich, Switzerland costs $21 due to their minimum wage there. And a house costs 1,000,000 Swiss francs or about $750,000. Inflation is a bitch.

    • Aaron Levesque

      Switzerland has a minimum wage equivalent of $15. A Big Mac in Switzerland costs about $6.56. The average net monthly income in Switzerland? $5,600. That’s right. $5,600. (Did I mention that’s net income?)

      • Hill William 1984

        Was just in Zurich. Paid 18.5 Swiss francs for a quarter pounder, fries and a coke. $1=0.93 sf or $19.89 for a quarter pounder meal. And they don’t even supersize there!

        Average net is 6000 Swiss francs a month. You realize that is over $75,000 a year? A far cry from the US at $26,695 a year. So that is almost 3X per individual.

        The median price of one pair of Levi’s 501 is 149 Swiss francs or $160 a pair.

        I can go on and on, the point is proven. Rampant inflation has warped the economy in Switzerland which has the highest consumer price index in the world. So high average wages means high average prices. Simple as that.

        Let me make it even simpler. Think of a histogram of wages in USA. At the left side we have minimum wage earners. At the extreme right we have the wealthiest earners. Now lets increase the minimum wage 2x. Are the poorest still on the extreme left of that histogram? You betcha. Does the whole curve move to the right via inflation? You betcha.

      • Anne2

        Inflation does not move instantly.

  • Matt Mcneill

    So where is the information that the Swiss have a minimum wage? There is no legal defined minimum wage in Switzerland. I agree with Michael about imposing a maximum wage on large corporations but how would such a law affect small and medium business? Finally for those who support a 15.00/hr minimum wage, why 15.00? Why not 50?

    • Oldetooles

      $15 is where the actual living wage in this country is. It takes you out of the poverty bracket. Now can you see how absurd $7.25 is?

      • Matt Mcneill

        No. You say this actually thinking prices won’t inflate due to it. Since when was minimum wage EVER designed to be a living wage anyways? If you are trying to live off minimum wage, you need to sit down and re-evaluate you’re life. With the exception of a job I left after working about 12 hours, I haven’t worked for minimum wage since I was 16.

      • 65snake

        Since it’s inception, Matt. That’s what it’s FOR.

  • ShoreBudMike

    I wonder – quite honestly – what percentage of “moochers” (anyone requiring any type of social services) are Republican voters.

    • Brent Slensker

      Most of the Red States take in more Federal bucks than they pay.

    • gemma liar

      probably 50%

  • Fast food?
    Those who eat hamburgers don’t deserve concern.

  • Annie

    Let’s face it, the greedy bastards at the top could raise the wage levels for most working Americans, but that would decrease their profit margins, thus decreasing their bonuses…

    • Andre Salazar

      That ignores how prices emerge. That is like saying that I can pay more for gasoline and therefor I should. Or I should pay more for a banana and therefor I should. Wages in the labor market are controlled by supply and demand the same way as anything else NOT by need.

      • WizardBill

        That is completely false, Andre. If that were true, there would be no need for a minimum wage. The truth is, when taking a job, people get what their experience, locale, and their situation allows. All those who work minimum wage jobs do not get paid more because those factors do not allow them to make more money. If businesses were allowed to pay less, they would pay less.

  • Andre Salazar

    “The one I hear the most is that “the minimum wage kills jobs.” Which I guess is true. If we cut the minimum wage in half, we could create two jobs for the “price” of one. That’s “twice” as many jobs, right?

    Well, it sure is. Only—they’ll pay somewhere around $3.63 per hour.

    I’m sorry, but if that’s the job our minimum wage is “destroying,” then good riddance. People can’t get by on $7.25 an hour, let alone less than that.”

    If a job is destroyed then it forces a persons income to drop to zero. So while it may be difficult for a person to live on 7.25 an hour I believe it is even more difficult for someone to live with no income at all. In fact last I checked $3.63 x 40hrs =145.2/week > 0/week.

    I think the misunderstanding comes from the idea that if a low paying job is destroyed another one, at the new minimum wage, will replace it. However when ECONOMISTS talk about a loss in jobs, they aren’t talking about a specific kind of a job, they are talking about a net loss of jobs for a given demographic. In fact that is how we get to an unemployment rate hovering above 40% for black teenagers….