PaulSmith69 said: “Minimum wages ADD to poverty, same as welfare does, rather than lifting people out of poverty.
NO incentive to get off one's lazy ass and improve one's self is a bad idea".
PaulSmith69 said: “More jobs would be available, economy would improve (even more), companies will have greater profits allowing increased wages”.
You haven't explained why the increasing jobs simultaneously with decreasing the median wage would not be net detrimental to our nation's economy; you haven't explained why it would increase USA commercial enterprise's aggregate profits.
If USA commercial enterprise's aggregate profits could be increased while reducing the purchasing power of the median wage, how would that not be a reduction of our nation's living standards and a net detriment to our economy? Is a nation's economy evaluated by investors rates of return, or by the purchasing power of its median wage? Many of the world's poorest nation's offer substantial rates of investors returns (at usually some greater risk to the politically less favored), but those nation's have the poorest of median wage purchasing powers that indicate their poor median living standards.
If the federal minimum wage rate's eliminated or to the extent that its purchasing power is reduced, I don't doubt there would be more jobs at lesser purchasing power rates and the purchasing power of the nation's median wage rate would also be somewhat reduced. Those additional jobs were previously not financially justified.
The progressive transformation from human to automation would slower; which is detrimental to a nation's economy. Automation has always been to our nation's net benefit.
Due to the minimum and the median wage being less than otherwise, the extent of national poverty will increase. Despite the small increase of GDP due to the increased jobs, the lesser than otherwise purchasing power of our median wage rate would indicate our nation's lesser than otherwise living standards. It's net detrimental to increase GDP if the median wage rate's reduced.
Respectfully, Supposn
NO incentive to get off one's lazy ass and improve one's self is a bad idea".
PaulSmith69 said: “More jobs would be available, economy would improve (even more), companies will have greater profits allowing increased wages”.
PaulSmith69, you're repeating yourself.
You haven't explained why the increasing jobs simultaneously with decreasing the median wage would not be net detrimental to our nation's economy; you haven't explained why it would increase USA commercial enterprise's aggregate profits.
If USA commercial enterprise's aggregate profits could be increased while reducing the purchasing power of the median wage, how would that not be a reduction of our nation's living standards and a net detriment to our economy? Is a nation's economy evaluated by investors rates of return, or by the purchasing power of its median wage? Many of the world's poorest nation's offer substantial rates of investors returns (at usually some greater risk to the politically less favored), but those nation's have the poorest of median wage purchasing powers that indicate their poor median living standards.
If the federal minimum wage rate's eliminated or to the extent that its purchasing power is reduced, I don't doubt there would be more jobs at lesser purchasing power rates and the purchasing power of the nation's median wage rate would also be somewhat reduced. Those additional jobs were previously not financially justified.
The progressive transformation from human to automation would slower; which is detrimental to a nation's economy. Automation has always been to our nation's net benefit.
Due to the minimum and the median wage being less than otherwise, the extent of national poverty will increase. Despite the small increase of GDP due to the increased jobs, the lesser than otherwise purchasing power of our median wage rate would indicate our nation's lesser than otherwise living standards. It's net detrimental to increase GDP if the median wage rate's reduced.
Respectfully, Supposn
