Minimum Wage primer

@no1marauder said
The minimum wage was increased from 40 cents a hour to 75 cents an hour in January 1950, an immediate 88% increase. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart

The inflation rate in 1950 was 1.26%. https://www.officialdata.org/1950-dollars-in-1946?amount=$100

Many you could present some historical data supporting your claim that a minimum wage increase will trigger large price increases.

So what you are saying is a percentage jump in minimum wage this large in recent history ( since 1938 ) has never occurred.

Thank you.

Guess well just have to roll the dice...your guy is calling the shots...you can say "I told you so" if we're still around in a decade.

@joe-shmo said
So what you are saying is a percentage jump in minimum wage this large in recent history ( since 1938 ) has never occurred.

Thank you.

Guess well just have to roll the dice...your guy is calling the shots...you can say "I told you so" if we're still around in a decade.

The percentage jump in 1950 was far larger than the percentage jump proposed in the recent legislation. It was 88% immediately whereas the minimum wage would only be increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour in 2021; a 31% increase. The law would not exceed the one year percentage jump in 1950 until 2024. https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/biden-double-down-on-15-minimum-wage-how-it-works-biggest-hurdles-what-next/

@no1marauder said
The minimum wage was increased from 40 cents a hour to 75 cents an hour in January 1950, an immediate 88% increase. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart

The inflation rate in 1950 was 1.26%. https://www.officialdata.org/1950-dollars-in-1946?amount=$100

Many you could present some historical data supporting your claim that a minimum wage increase will trigger large price increases.

Yeah, it was a larger single change in 1950, with nothing 5 years before and 5 years after...

The gross percentage change for this jump over 5 years is still larger than any change over a 5 year period you can point to on the chart.

The fact that they were "dumber" back then about not shocking the system should be understood.

@joe-shmo said
Prices rise. That is the re-maximization of profit.

I would rather pay the price something actually costs to produce, not the cost subsidized by government social programs. I'm surprised you prefer the welfare approach over free market solutions.

@wildgrass said
I would rather pay the price something actually costs to produce, not the cost subsidized by government social programs. I'm surprised you prefer the welfare approach over free market solutions.

How is the government forcibly elevating the minimum wage free market?

@joe-shmo said
How is the government forcibly elevating the minimum wage free market?

Because it's the alternative to a government-run federally-mandated corporate subsidy for living wages.

@wildgrass said
Because it's the alternative to a government-run federally-mandated corporate subsidy for living wages.

If you think welfare is going away you are delusional. Its not alternative...its aggrandized.

@joe-shmo said
Yeah, it was a larger single change in 1950, with nothing 5 years before and 5 years after...

The gross percentage change for this jump over 5 years is still larger than any change over a 5 year period you can point to on the chart.

The fact that they were "dumber" back then about not shocking the system should be understood.

If your simplistic analysis was accurate, the one year almost doubling of the minimum wage should have led to massive price increases.

It didn't.

@joe-shmo said
If you think welfare is going away you are delusional. Its not alternative...its aggrandized.

Well, I wasn't talking about welfare as a whole (obviously).

Full time minimum wage workers in our economy currently qualify for welfare and food stamps. That's where I jumped into the conversation.

That's backwards, anti-capitalist. Employers should pay the difference, not the federal government. All this mumbo jumbo about potential job losses with minimum wage increases misses the fact that those jobs are all federally subsidized. How is it aggrandized if the goal is to eliminate that specific federal subsidy to full time minimum wage workers? (which again, is distinct from welfare on the whole). You can't deny that a minimum wage increase takes a lot of people off the welfare rolls, so you choose to talk about welfare as a whole. That's a different topic.