Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Excellent post, and you're right to a degree, but you also have to accommodate for fewer hours and positions available.
The whole point is to help all of them right? So you still have to help the workers that are laid off and cant find other work.
|
Of course some people could be laid off, but it won't be as simple as 3 x $10/hr workers turning into 2 x $15/hr workers. If it was, then the price increases you were previously claiming will happen would be even lower, since the have eaten most of the increased costs by reducing the workforce.
The reality is likely that a little bit of everything will cause the market to equilibrium of these factors:
- Prices will go up a little, which could increase the cost of living for all non-minimum wage workers since even though they might get a small raise, it won't match the minimum wage.
- Workers will have to do a little more for their $5 an hour raise, which is logical.
-Some people, either driven out by the fact that they are expected to do more, work less hours, or can't be paid for because the business was already running as efficiently as possible, will be laid off or just decide not to do the work (students, those supplementing full time income, or retirees). These people might end up on social assistance, EI and cost the taxpayers money
-The businesses might have to accept a smaller profit margin, which could kill some businesses.
- The government will gain some tax income, which could offset some/all of the losses due to increased load on the system due to layoffs
There are too many factors to be sure about what will happen exactly, but the likely end result is that the middle/upper class pay the end costs of this. It's really just a whitewashed form of income redistribution, and if you are against that, it's fine, but framing your arguments without including the whole picture is really disingenuous.