- First, "a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent indication of negative employment effects." [I.e., for every 10% increase, there's 2% job loss]
- Second, "studies that focus on the least-skilled groups (i.e., teens, and welfare moms) provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects." [I.e., it's predominantly minimum wage earners that get sacked]
Proponents argue that millions of workers will benefit from the bigger paychecks. But about two of every three full-time minimum-wage workers get a pay raise anyway within a year on the job. Meanwhile, those who lose their jobs or who never get a job in the first place get a minimum wage of $0. [worse than '0', they typically start/continue drawing on some form(s) of government assistance - from contributor to consumer - a huge delta] And single mothers without jobs also lose out on other benefits provided by programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
Consider a single mom with two kids who earns the current $6.55 minimum at a full-time, year-round job:
- In 2009 she receives a $5,028 EITC cash payment from Uncle Sam -- or about an extra $2.50 per hour worked.
- Other federal income supplements, such as the refundable child tax credit, add another $1,900 or so.
- Thus at a wage of $6.55 an hour, her actual pay becomes $10.02 an hour -- more than a 50 percent increase from the current minimum.
But that single mom can't collect those checks if she doesn't have a job, and the tragedy of a higher minimum wage is that it will prevent tens of thousands of working moms striving to pull their families out of poverty from being hired in the first place.
[Who cares? As long as the government labor unions are kept happy...]
READ MORE

image toon mny bbro bdd = Pelosi putting up min wage increase during layoff meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment