Spurge, you really need to take an economics course. Your failure to understand the economic impact of wage increase is sad.

The wage portion of the retail cost of a good is going to be about 20%. Let's assume a 20% increase in wages as well. So, 20% of 20%. Well, if something costs $6.00, then the wage portion is $1.20, which makes the increase what? What's 20% of $1.20? 24¢.

Ok. So, the minimum wage right now is $7.25. A 20% wage increase is what? $1.45. That's $1.45 per hour more that goes into the hands of a consumer. Low income wage earners put a higher percentage of their income back into the economy than higher wage earners do. Why is this good?

A few reasons.

A person who makes $1.45 more per hour is going to buy more goods, those purchases translate into work someone else somewhere else has to do. So that electronics assembler in Dublin, OH that makes the main system board for the hottest electronic device on the market today can add a third shift because a whole new group of people have access to their products. In turn, the factory has to purchase more materials to make their electronics devices, thus investing more capital into their business. For that third shift, they also have to hire more employees, removing individuals from unemployment or allowing some to move from lower wage jobs to a higher wage job.

What else does it do? By earning more money, it increases the income level of those involved. Why is this important? Because it means fewer people will require benefits like SNAP or health insurance provided through the US government. Thus, the government doesn't expend revenue (a negative on one hand, a positive on the other).

The impact of a wage increase, such as an increase in the minimum wage, has a substantial multiplier effect on the entire economy. Yes, some people will lose their jobs. I can assure you, it takes no less than 8 people to run a McDonald's with any kind of efficiency. McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and others will need a substantial workforce.

Any negative effects of a wage increase (especially in the minimum wage) is short term. The economy will rebound. Why? 2/3rd of the economy is driven by consumer spending. As spending increases, investment increases, government expenditures go down, and business capital investments increase,

When someone from a higher income wage is given a wage increase, more often than not, a greater percentage of that increase goes into savings and investments. There is no expansion of the economy on the scale of what is generated by consumer spending. If Warren Buffet got a 20% increase in pay, the entire 20% increase would be invested in an investment of one form or another. That isn't meant to discount the consumer spending higher wage earners perform on the economy, but as wages increase the amount of people that enjoy those higher wages decreases. So, a 20% increase in wages for 40% of the population actually has a greater impact on the economy than a 20% increase for just 2% of the population.

Don't try to justify a position with suggesting tax cuts. A 20% wage increase actually has a greater positive impact than a 20% tax cut could. A tax cut impacts government revenue, which impacts government expenditures, government expenditures will impact industrial activity, that means a reduction in labor, which means more people are unemployed. Businesses don't expand their business based on tax cuts. In fact, as it happens, US corporations are sitting on the largest cash reserves known in history. That might sound great on a balance sheet, but in an economy it is a scary thing. Companies with cash assets aren't using it to expand their business. They have the resources to do so, but there is no consumer/corporate spending to drive that need to expand the business.

So how do you increase spending, in order to increase production? Give a group of people a mandatory pay raise. The economy will grow because of it. That is precisely why states are increasing their minimum wage laws. Michigan, which is controlled by a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, as well as having a Republican governor signed a minimum wage increase law.

If you understand how the economy works, a minimum wage increase makes sense. If you don't actually understand how the economy works, then no. A minimum wage is a stupid thing and we shouldn't do it.

It's a terrible idea.

A terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

This is not freedom - it's slavery.

Terrible, terrible idea.

If you don't know who I am then don't act like you know how I view life. I know full well what is going on around the world, but to be quite honest, those people are not my problem right now.

I have my own family to worry about. They come first and this family is why we worked hard to get where we are.

Never said me and my girl are the best. I only gave my story and why our hard work shouldn't be undermined because others might choose to not strive to become something more.

If you don't like that, then oh well.

No one seems to take that into account (tying minimum wage to inflation). I am, personally, not just utterly opposed to raising the minimum wage. But people are asking for $15/hr. That's insane. I make more than that, but not a whole lot. And I'll tell you what: I can afford my rent, my stupidly expensive car payment for what the car is (mother had bad credit, but I had no credit leaving college and I needed a car. She just got one from one of those "bad credit, we'll take you!" places and the payments were transferred to me), my student loans, and a credit card bill. And you know what, I still travel to places like Vegas and Atlanta, buy Playstations, got into cycling (not a cheap hobby), and more. That's what $15/hr will get you. Point being, $15/hr is not a "living" wage. It is very much a "luxury" wage. My essentials...essentials that not everyone even have (credit card bill, student loans, car payment...but I still have to pay them, unlike getting a PS4) are covered as well as a roof over my head and food on the table. And on top of that I can do all that extra stuff. This is what people who want a higher wage want. Not a "living wage", they want the extra stuff. They're accustomed to living outside their means, and now that there's a movement behind it, people think they are entitled to that lifestyle. You can live on a lot less than $15/hr, and I'm living proof of it.

Now, if you made the mistake of having kids with a scumbag, and he's not around to take care of it: your fault. If you have a job in such a niche field that it wouldn't translate to anything else if you got laid off: your fault. If you don't work and someone else is the breadwinner and they die, and in the time you were together, you do absolutely nothing that would have the slightest relevance on a resume: your fault.

But don't turn around and say you need $15/hr to "live". I "live" on a lot less. No, not ramen and hot pockets either. And the additional money I make goes to extra stuff you have no business partaking in if you're only qualified enough to work at McDonald's.

It's funny how many people don't seem to understand what the minimum wage means and they just try to make arbitrary numbers relative to their own figure in their head.

You're earning $15 an hour already, great. Why are you complaining? You're not earning less because of other people earning more.

Minimum wage is supposed to be the lowest reasonable wage that someone can live off of. $15, $12, $20 etc are all arbitrary numbers. The question should be, Is the current wage high enough to support yourself with a modest lifestyle?

I'm not going to comment on the situation in the USA as I know very little in comparison to people living there. However, if someone is working 40 hours a week at Min wage and can't live a modest lifestyle or support themselves, well then it needs to be raised.

Someone posted a graph that showed the minimum wage decrease in value (since 1962 or around there?) so this should be also taken into account with inflation or value of the national currency.

Also another point at people saying "The company will just fire X amount of people and keep Y the same amount to keep the cost even" This is not true. If a company could fire you, they would regardless if your wage has been deemed to go up. Companies that make billions in profit layoff people all the time

If there are 5 excess staff, well, they're the fat that will be trimmed.

I will admit however that raising the wage could be used as an excuse to layoff people to avoid bad press. The 'recession' was used as an excuse by several companies posting massive profits to layoff thousands of staff citing 'economic difficulties'

Increased costs = prices passed on to the consumer. Or, more people having more money = suppliers seeing increased demand so they increase prices in order to maximize profits. I saw the video PDF posted (funny, it went from asking for $9/hr to $15/hr in just one year between the video posts) that said the costs would come out of profits, not increased prices. Not true, companies don't want their profit margins to decrease. They may be "in stiff competition for customers" but if companies are thinking "I don't want to make less now than I did before", they're all going to go in the same direction and pass the cost onto the consumer. So either way, my purchasing power decreases. Meaning I am making less if others make more (on a large scale like that). 

Also, define a "modest" lifestyle. I define it as being able to have a roof over your head, food on your table, and clothes on your back. Anything other than that is extra. Nobody is owed or entitled to "extra". You gotta work for that.

They *would* go up, is the issue, for that very reason. Not that they feel necessarily like they're entitled to more, but for the mere fact that a $15-an-hour social worker with a fancy degree (and yeah, social workers get paid around that little) could then ditch to do stocking-work at Wal Mart and make the exact same amount, forcing the state to raise social worker wages or risk losing them all to easier, equal-paid work.

Thus it has a net positive effect up the chain. That and minimum-wager's marginal propensity to consume is higher than any other group. Certainly higher than all those billionaires bitching about tax breaks. $100 for a guy like me means a lot more than $100,000 to a fortune 500 CEO.

I agree with you to a point. I crunched the numbers, and i could almost support myself on my $8/hr job if i worked it full time (can't, though, grad school and all).

My question is: are you single and/or childless?

Poverty and the wage debate usually isn't about unmarried 20 somethings.

Minimum wage hikes won't necessarily be a cost increase across the board, however. Let's take employee turnover, for instance. Higher minimum wages would mean less turnover, and less turnover decreases recruitment costs, which are significant (quoted figures number in the thousands per employee, between advertising, recruiters' wages, paperwork processing, labor spent on training, and the deadweight loss from a new, inexperienced worker)

Then add back in the fact that places employing minimum wage workers (or near-min, like the gas station i work at) are likely to be DIRECT beneficiaries of the increased money given to those with a high marginal propensity to consume. If my wage practically doubled, i'd buy more snacks at work, for one. Poor folks shop at Wal Mart. Give poor folks more money, they'll spend more at Wal Mart. Wal Mart themselves would likely net benefit.

But it isn't Irrevelent. Why work at a job you absolutly hate when you can work somewhere you'll lose. I am willing to bet you have not worked that much in your life.  Would you be willing to suffer at a job you hate for 30-40 years of your life just to make some money?