(November 6, 2014 at 9:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(November 6, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "Hey I know! If I say a ridiculous thing, the argument will vanish!"
Also known as Reducto Ad Absurdum.
(November 6, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't think you are a capable of knowing what is and what isn't a "reasonable" minimum wage. Further if a legislative minimum wage went away...that wouldn't mean the minimum wage goes away. Market forces would determine a prevailing minimum wage for a particular market. I didn't bother to respond to the "meat"(if you can call it that) of your post because your position is essentially liberals like you know better what the minimum wage should be than the labor market does.
How about my suggestion: Minimum wage set to where a full time worker isn't eligible for food stamps.
Market forces would force a higher minimum wage without food stamps. No one will work 40 hours and still starve to death. Even conservative 19th century economists agreed there was a "natural minimum wage", set to base subsistence level.
Because there are food stamps, business can get away with paying less than that natural minimum wage. This is a subsidy for their labor costs.
The minimum wage needs to be set where a 40 hour a week worker doesn't need welfare to survive. Then you'll see food stamp consumption cut in half.
Agree 100% but I don't like the code by dems saying "nobody working 40 hours a week", because that still would not stop businesses from creating more part time jobs to keep wages down. We need livable wages and more full time work.
