"They'll just raise prices if thy raise the minimum wage."

[kılıç_mehmet]

Oh no! You mean the employers will have to pay people a fair exchange for labor?!

What you don't seem to understand is that a company can decrease its supply, meaning, employ less people and still make the same amount of money, since less supply with a constant demand means higher prices. Unless there is a price ceiling of course.

So that nice conservative couple who wanted to pay 4 day laborers $150 for 3 days of work to pour the cement pond in their backyard isn't going to have their dream come true? Oh no!

Labor is also a commodity. You pay for it. If the supply on that one decreases, the prices increase. If no one is willing to work for that amount of money, one would expect them to either increase the wages on that one, or do it by themselves.

Oh no! The rich won't have as many free lunches if there are government actions to make sure employees are paid a living wage for the work they do! What will happen then? Oh no!

Oh, I absolutely agree.

Look around Heywood, if they weren't greedy bastards they'd already be paying a fair wage.

Everyone is greedy my friend. Even the laborers you and I strive to protect. They are greedy too. A good state maintains a balance between the greed of the employer, and the greed of the employee, to satisfy both sides to a degree.

I am a libertarian and support a negative income tax(which method of providing a basic universal income).

Ditch food stamps, ditch unemployment, ditch social security, ditch housing assistance, ditch heating assistance, ditch Obama phones.....ditch all of it and the bureaucracy that goes with it. Give poor people money instead.

Liberaltards and conservotards like to run peoples lives and think poor people are second class citizens whose finances need to be managed by the government. Let people be free for God's sake.

Negative income tax? Well, my friend, where will this goverment get the money?
In my opinion, income tax should not be given away as currency, but as services that people pay money for. Like for example, healthcare and education. I'd say that these services are better off in the hands of the state.

Workers don't get paid more, not because the companies would lose profit but because the owners would have one less house in a foreign country in which to stash their gains made off corporate welfare.

And why would you say that these corporate CEO's should give off of a portion of their money to their workers? Are they obliged to do so by a law?
Then make a law, state, that a company should transfer a yearly percentage of its profits to its workers salaries as bonuses.
It shouldn't be too hard to make. And it certainly would not be an incentive for companies to fire people and thereby decrease their productivity.

They look for the cheapest possible labor, and then collect tax write offs for doing it.

That's what a company does. Why else do you think, do people get their shit produced in China and not at their home countries?
Increase your profits by decreasing your expenditures.
Here is where the state comes in. It is the state that must protect the interests of its working citizens. For example, enact a law that every company should hire a minimum number of native skilled workers. Sure, it would decrease the profits of the company a bit, but you can decrease the taxes that they pay in return.


In all, the problem here is not the CEO's, nor the companies. It is the state. The state must involve itself into the affairs of the private sector to protect the interests of its workers. However, balance must be maintained. Go too hard on the companies, and they'll simply take their business elsewhere, to some poor country that urgently needs some investments.