(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.
I don't understand why so many people don't get that if employers pay a solid, living minimum wage, there's no need for almost all of those evil taxes that have to go towards paying for food stamps and other income supplements, with the added benefit that you'll have better, happier, healthier and more motivated employees who will want to be loyal to you.
