Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mavdog
the states on the list were not selected, they happen t be the states who have a higher minimum wage than the federal mandate. they are what they are, there was no selecting or culling.
likewise, the stataes with the higher unemployment stats are what they are...and several of those are not "stagnant" economies, for instance SC is an expanding economy.
the wages generally are not set by the voters but by the legislatures.
[bold] my asertion remains the same: a higher minimum wage does not in itself cost jobs. it is not a choice between the higher wage and a job. a healthy economy can pay a reasonable wage such a $7.25 and still experience positive job growth. [/bold]
|
THe problem with this is there is not "a labor market" per se. There are a whole bunch of localities, each with their own labor markets. Actually each locality has a bunch of local labor markets, based on skills levels. If we concentrate on the unskilled (or at least relatively unskilled) labor markets that this will have an effect on, there is a HUGE difference between the market for unskilled labor in Podunk, Mississippi versus the market for unskilled labor in San Jose, Calif.
And yet, you act as if the fact that a min-wage increase in some of the high-wage areas (where it is difficult to find jobs that actually pay minimum wage, even at McD's or 7-11) doesn't have a huge adverse effect on the economy, implies that imposing the same minimum wage in Mississippi, where it will be TOTALLY binding, will also not have a measurable adverse affect. This is totally incorrect. The fallacy of composition.
If you WANT to, you can argue that the benefits of a minimum wage in these areas outweighs the costs, but to argue that there won't be an adverse effect is wrong.