Except every time wages have been raised through legislation the markets were able to bare paying that higher wage without large scale negative impacts.
It's almost like businesses are paying less than the jobs are worth
https://twitter.com/TheLaurenChen/status/1241771147299115011 …
-
-
Replying to @RationalDis
This isn't necessarily true. The best supporting case for this argument comes from a study by Card and Krueger studying Pennsylvania, but one explanation for why employment didn't decrease was that the legislation set the wage at what the market basically would have been anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lspiguesslol @RationalDis
Another argument was that this was unique to the restaurant industry, which was studied. One study described minimum wage impacts causing unemployment in trade jobs specifically by minimum wage increases, and the CBO likewise found that minimum wage increases cause unemployment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lspiguesslol @RationalDis
The evidence is pretty mixed. A national $15/hr probably doesn't make sense. In fact, one might wager the $15 number is plainly political since the costs of living in most states isn't anywhere near that number, unless we assume single parent with two kids.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lspiguesslol @RationalDis
Now if you really want some good poverty reduction, allow me to introduce you to my good friend, the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's alpha as fuck. Basically depending on your income and dependents, you pay a negative tax rate. It reduces poverty without disrupting labor markets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
A tax credit is nice, but if markets can support higher wages I think companies should pay those higher wages especially if there aren't negative impacts on consumers.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.