Skip to main content

View Diary: Would you support this ? (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   If fed govt mandated $20 hr minimum living wage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No one gets out alive

    would raise every worker to near median income. If at same time govt ended all subsidies for people able to work and corporate welfare, wouldn't taxes go down as government expenditures shrunk? Walked dog with tea party neighbor this morning and he couldn't come up with reason to reject this. If every worker had living wage, they wouldn't need govt subsidies and with fewer people needing govt benefits, taxes would go down. Also more people could buy stuff thus growing the economy. Restrictions on outsourcing labor would also be needed to prevent circumventing minimum wage threshold.

    “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon, 1977.

    by Kvetchnrelease on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 05:40:20 AM PST

    •  I think you would need a lot of very good data (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kvetchnrelease

      to see if this was feasible on a dynamic basis. I think there would be a lot more unemployment, so that would have to be factored into the model.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:12:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One of the 'threats' frequently from the Right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kvetchnrelease

      Is that if business is hampered by taxes or regulation that it will simply move elsewhere, including overseas.

      Even die hard Libertarians who believe in laisez-faire economics and absolute limits on regulation will tell you that interstate and especially overseas regulation IS a valid function of the federal govt.  

      We frequently hear on the media that the reason that the Main St economy is still so sluggish is because of structural problems in our economy.  As I am sure we all here know, one of the, if not the main structural problem is that the system is designed to suppress the working class while transferring the wealth to a very few.  

      Forcing a fair redistribution, back to the workers who make the wealth day in and day out would go a long way towards fixing the system.   Such a system must be backed up by proper regulation with the ability to enforce it, preventing the flight to other areas.  

      Of course, the RW'ers would say that the business owners would choose to just go under instead.  I disagree.  There should be rewards for taking initiative, starting a business, risking capital (money) in the equity markets, etc.  Somebody will desire those extra benefits and pursue them.  The problem is that the current system has gone too far out of control to where we have a fox owning the hen house situation.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:24:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What happens to people who are able to work (0+ / 0-)

      but are not able to do work worth $20/hr due to skills, work ethic, being reliable, etc.?

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:51:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since it is the minimum, they would do what they (0+ / 0-)

        now, look for a different job. Moreover, there is no shortage of minimum wage jobs.

        “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon, 1977.

        by Kvetchnrelease on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:37:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site