(January 30, 2014 at 12:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: However, is it the job of employers to fulfill that subsidy? An employer cannot fill a job whose output is worth less than what the job pays, at least not on a regular basis.
Most of the economic issues with the minimum wage (mainly underemployment of low-skilled workers) would disappear if the government subsidized it. If you work at a job that pays $6 an hour, the government pays the difference between that and the minimum wage.
I think the benefits of high employment would more than make up the costs of subsidizing the minimum wage. The percentage of workers who currently make minimum wage is less than 3% of the work force, so it's not like we're talking about supplementing the hourly wage of 50 million people.
If we as a nation think everyone who works should make at least a certain amount of money per hour, we should be willing to pay the cost rather than mandate someone else do it.
We already do with those who work full time at minimum wage and still need government assistance.
I have someone close to me that has Downs Syndrome, she's also very advanced for having her condition, and it helps that hers is not very severe. When she does get of age, she deserves to get paid equally like everyone else. Her condition holds her back a little, but it will not be detrimental to her finding a place in society.
