Robert Reich Destroys Minimum Wage Myths 

Not like student loans and debt is a think, am I right - _-

Also, its flies in the face of the idea that we should give equal pay for equal work. The work that teen is doing "flipping burgers" is no less demanding than the adult "flipping burgers" Introduce a "teen wage" and you'll see a lot of people fired on their 18th birthday. These fast food places *want* a bunch of kids they don't have to pay and who don't know their rights and won't speak up against authority...

@@summertime69 if these jobs were for kids, they wouldn't be open during school hours qnd would close early, as kids gotta get up for school. Amirite?

And it assumes that the only people making minimum wage are teenagers. This isn’t true.

Been a teen was rough how am supposed get cute Southeast Asian Girls or a Perky Icelandic Model or even Hot Black Chick on minimum wage. That is why I sell Windex, Vicky, Warlock. Making off to pay of the judges and cops so I wouldn't catch a case.

Not only that, but in 2020 the US government handed out generous subsidies to oil corporations with the intention for them to spend it to build new extraction and processing infrastructure. Yet instead, these corporations used those subsidies to pay out dividends to their shareholders. In other words, public tax money was used to pay dividends to shareholders!

Simple solution is to end welfare programs and let people starve. Problem solved with “subsidizing corporations” which is not actually true

For many years, the largest recipient of SNAP (FOOD ASSISTANCE) was fucking Wal-Mart. Because they would pay their employees dogshit and then encourage them to sign up for welfare.

@@joshuawagner1149 that is a lie as walmart was not paid any SNAP.

@@scottmolnar4132 oil companies are indeed subsidized as is the oil and gas industry and many other companies and programs across the United States. Please research before making your claims

To "buy the dip" It will be profitable in the long run. However, investors should be wary of the bull run. It is advisable to connect with a skilled adviser to fulfill your growth objectives and prevent mistakes. High interest rates typically result in lower stock prices.

I truly enjoy having a portfolio coach to help me make market judgments on a daily basis. They possess a special combination of abilities that enable them to take both long and short positions, benefiting from the possibility of significant gains while also safeguarding against downward turns. I have had a portfolio coach for more than two years and throughout that time I've actually earned over $645k. It was a wonderful experience!

​ *@heathermellon7826* Who is the professional who is advising you, if you could perhaps tell us? As a novice investing in stocks without the correct direction of a professional, I have lost a lot of money.

Do your homework and choose one that has strategies to help your portfolio grow consistently and steadily. ‘’Camille Alicia Garcia” is responsible for the success of my portfolio, and I believe she possesses the qualifications and expertise to meet your goals.

After conducting an online search of her name, her website quickly surfaced, piquing my curiosity. The initial impression is positive and I intend to arrange a call with her. I'll make sure to provide you with updates on how it goes. Thank you.

Here's the cold hard reality: your job didn't give the economy enough to justify an actually good amount of money. The money the rich get does not boost the prices you have to pay; the starvation wage you earned is the only thing that is boosting the prices of what you buy. If the economy was actually healthy the items you buy would be cheap enough that the starvation wage would be enough because prices ARE NOT FIXED. Every single person here is forgetting one extremely important fact: goods and services exist, but money is a figment of our imagination. Changing our perception of our shared IMAGINATION does not affect actual reality. The problem is that our workers are not impacting the economy enough to justify lower prices for goods; there is still WAY too much demand for WAY too little work to push the items out at a cheaper price... And it's only getting worse. Raising the minimum wage will continue to make this problem WORSE. It will increase demand for items yet again and drive people out of the job. EDIT: There is ONE THING that is CORRECT to say here, however, and that is in regards to the rich. Stop this BS about minimum wage; that'll just impoverish us more and give the rich even more share of the money. What we absolutely NEED TO DO is break up ALL corporations in the US and abroad. Some FORM, not necessarily saying we do it directly as indirectly achieving this would probably be best, of maximum income. My suggestion is to render it illegal to buy and sell companies and to adjust monopoly laws to better account for population; if a company owns more than a capita's projected market share then they must be considered a monopoly and broken up. We need to move this to the civil sector so that regional managers can sue to gain ownership of the fragmented pieces.

@@Ryanowning Stop smoking POT !!

@@martinko40 Never engaged in narcotics. The reason that prices are so high that your starvation wage doesn't cut it is because artificial demand non-stop inflates the price way beyond what it should be. Where does that artificial demand come from? The government subsidized torture that is the poor. You cannot regulate people out of poverty. All you can do is regulate people out of unsustainable riches. That's what we need to be doing so that everyone can have well paying jobs and cheap goods to buy. There is one thing that really irks me about this dumbass talking at the camera. He says we produce enough food for 12 billion people. Want to know where that extra 3 billion actually goes? Fucking ethanol. Seems like the solution to world hunger is to just stop being batshit crazy and embrace nuclear power.

@@Ryanowning the first two paragraphs you wrote make absolutely no sense. you might need to rephrase.

thats really messed up that this happened to you azari

It really is. I want so bad to understand. Even more to believe. Why are they doing this? I desperately read both sides and have never fell for the Hivemind. The feeling is anger, powerlessness and hopelessness. I wish l were never born here so that way the very less can look like so much more. I would get more respect, services and opportunity. The people who built and died for this country. Erased and ignored. The unhoused and desperation for simple courtesy. Both sides found everyday to destroy instead of uplift their own nations. It's living nightmare come true. Nope, l love my nightmares. Only place that's real to me.

There are people doing that in the comments here in this video... It makes me really sad and angry to see that

Propaganda works

I remember working a job that paid 75 cents above minimum wage.. When min wage went up, its was above that amount and everyone was happy until I pointed out that we're now making exactly min wage and not above it.. it became a big argument with the managers vs me sticking up for everyone. They kept trying to say that "I'm being paid more than before so I should shut up and be happy".. and I kept pointing out, "then why weren't we paid min wage before?".. silence ..The real answer is because we were independent contractors that used our own vehicles/gas/insurance etc, (and our gas expense at this time had already 2-5x'd from when we started, because of the war in Iraq).. When they finally couldn't beat around the bush anymore, they gave me the ole "We're all in this struggle together, so we cant really pay anymore".. I told them I'll stick around if they don't raise their prices anytime this year.. so I basically quit about a month later. It took 3 people to do my route which eventually cost the thieves, I mean bosses their contract.. Damn it feels good to be right sometimes.

They're not tricked. Many would rather starve than see "others" have decent lives.

Yeah good things happen for a lot of normal people. But good things for us aren't good for the rich. The rich want to keep us down, to keep themselves up

Could you provide this study?

**Starbucks raises minimum wage to $15** **10 months later** **starbucks drives up prices to compensate and valuation drops by 66 billion** Oops, forgot about this one didn’t we (many others but this is the most obvious example)

@@ashleysantoro9375 Starbucks isn't raising prices because they HAVE to, but because they WANT to. Minimum wage increases don't cause price hikes, if anything it's the other way around

sounds really cool, what's your source for this?

I want to hear him say "Codswallop!"

And “ baloney”. Haha he is a gem!

One thing that Robert, conveniently leaves out, is supply and demand. When both parties push for unlimited immigration and the job market is saturated- employers don’t need to raise wages or offer benefits. On the other hand those immigrants won’t complain about low income and will work two jobs and replace the complaining native population

@@Navy35 huh? Immigrants are not taking jobs. This is pure white nationalist propaganda.

His teaching is rubbish

The businesses hire these people to consult them. The reason we know them is because of the books they've written, the schools they teach at, and the lectures they give. The people at these companies graduated from THEIR classrooms. The politicians too! What happened? I don't understand. I never will.

@@ButtersCCookie I think the people should have the right to vote on if they want to collectively sell business owners or politicians together with their blood-related families into slavery and repeat that vote each year. I think that would immediately lead to an utopian society, as politicians and businesses would have to operate every day under the threat of being dehumanized and sold, together with all their loved ones. With the privileges they gain, rich and influencial people should be willing to give up their human rights. I think rights should apply disproportional to personal wealth, which means that the more wealth you have, the less you enjoy state protection of your human rights.

Because they always shift the blame to an employee or two or three.

its also up to employees to also be responsible with their lives. if you are an unskilled laborer and then you decide to go and have 4 kids, you should be jailed for coercing your employer to bend over backwards to support your irresponsibility. instead, take your limited resources and go to school part time, so you can have a skill that demands a better wage.

One of the saddest conversations I ever had was with a business owner who praised two Caribbean immigrant employees of his who "scrimped and saved" working for him for 15 years so they could afford a downpayment on a 2BR house, so that they could now start the family they'd always dreamed of. Both now at over age 40, both of whom he was still at the time (2021) paying less than $15/hr. He was genuinely proud of them, happy for them, and willing to share their feel-good "American dream" story, and all I wanted to do was slap him in the face hard enough to shake out the cognitive dissonance that was masking his abhorrent treatment of such loyal people and employees he cared about.

"But but bosses take so much risk!" WORKERS TAKE RISKS TOO YA DUMB! Workers go through the lengthy hiring process, internship, education etc. to get your silly job in the first place. If the company fails, all that invested effort is wasted, and they loose their flippin job!

Get another job if you don't wanna work that amount. There's competition competing for your labor. Demanding higher wages (if they actually pay it and don't go through _glaring loopholes_ in the law) will lead to *negative pressure* (including opportunity cost) on employment, prices, productivity, working conditions, and/or benefits to make up the higher cost of labor. All of which disproportionately hurt those of lower skill/capability. Kids & the under experienced aren't looking for a 'living wage'. It's good to get on the job experience, make a bit of money, provide what people demand, & then move up the latter. All with the aid of friends, family, & charity to help keep you afloat. Lenders, seeing a future surplus from you gaining experience, will also aid you. They want to make money from your future endeavors. If we allowed deflation instead inflating the currecy, then the little you do acquire will naturally appreciate over time. You can reinvest that greater value to earn even more. Why get rid of small sectors like lemonade stands? They don't earn enough profit to guarantee a 'living wage' to all their constituents. They're not designed to. Should they not exist? Should the consumer (which is everyone) not have their demands met? Why not? Getting rid of those small sectors doesn't help the worker, who also consumes. Through higher productivity (from funds being allocated towards production) *real* wages grow. You can get more/better goods & services. Employers get around most of the cost imposed through cutting paid hours, then practically requiring 'volunteer' unpaid hours. They get paid the same amount, work the same amount, but at different time intervals. Time is money. If I have to pay you more over a shorter period of time, then there's more risk in that investment of capital. Labor is then more risky and thereby disincentivized, even where the market otherwise demands it. This is only a slight detriment, but a net negative nonetheless. That combined with mutual lawbreakers, people leaving for better, less people immigrating, & businesses pricing the effects of the minimum ahead of time (before its implementation/rise) *heavily* negates the damage seen through statistics. The minimum doesn't help anyone. Like all price controls, it always has adverse effects.

@@brandonsteele2826 no, it doesn't lead to more workers joining their business since every business is doing it. If they were better off in raising wages, then they would. They often do, but productivity comes first (as it should). That increases *real* wages. Mandating higher wages doesn't leave them with the funds to actually do it. They must get that money from somewhere. They reallocate funds *away* from productive capacity, innovation, employee benefits, or working conditions to increase their wages. They often also cut back on future hirings. Those of lesser skill/capability are the first to be fired & denied a job, since their labor doesn't make up for the cost of their labor. Prices are left relatively higher, & quality lower. The workers that do get more money end up with less purchasing power. It can also price out small businesses, leaving more bargaining power for large corps. There's a reason mcdonalds lobbied for a higher minimum. It also destroys many sectors that don't bring in enough revenue. Take lemonade stands as an example. I understand that in many places there's exemptions, but they're often arbitrary & many are still left with complications. Why shouldn't they exist? Everyone's a consumer & some demand those small sectors. That's the entire point of the market, to get what you demand. Once you account for opportunity cost in all these categories, mutual lawbreakers who don't report on their wages, then the many exceptions & loopholes in the laws in various places, the statistical data is clear. The minimum (like all price controls) is bad. There is some factors that haze this, such as higher bargaining power within some sectors. Bargaining power means they'll just raise wages with no real consequences, since they fund it through their personal profits instead allocating from other business operations. Most cases of high bargaining power are temporary or driven government interventions, such as protectionist policies, inflation, & *the minimum!* It exacerbates the problem. Bargaining power differs per sector, & there's no real way of measuring it. And it's healthy! Profit is what signals people to supply sectors & in proportion to how demanded they are. When you artificially raise the cost of labor, you make everything less profitable, meaning smaller sectors see producers leave & fail even when they're otherwise capable of supplying.

@@brandonsteele2826 Yes. It's seems like you're being satirical, but I can't tell. If so, you're funny.

@@austinbyrd4164 have you thought about what they said in the video about the government being able to allocate more of their money to other sectors, they could even cut taxes which would lower the price heightening. More people would also be able to use money on nonessentials which would cause other sectors to increase their own sales.

To quote the late Alex Trebek: "Fuck 'em!"

They'll need to lift their bootstraps much harder lol

Hard stolen lol - what happened to you peoples brains

Oligarchs pay people 40K a year and the government takes 8K of it for "roads." Oligarchs aren't the issue

@@yeetyeeterston6916 Yes they are, tf? Literally stagnating wages while also busting unionization efforts Oh, & have I mentioned one of their most synonymous activities? Tax evasion. No, that 8k for the roads would've not come from them. Those are just merely scratching the surface btw.

I help by using the Internet. I Used the Report-System of YT and Tiktok, but then everything changed when Susan Wojicki took-over... It has become harder and even though i still know i do good and get problem-content deleted, it feels not enough. I wonder if i can rally-up some fellow Socialists here, 'at least' for a quick flagging of Hatepreachers and/or P0rn?

If the minimum wage is too high for them to be hired, they can't keep a roof over their head. After all, the jobs that pay the wage you want for minimum wage to exist ... those jobs already exist. Why aren't they working at those higher paying jobs now?

@@mwatcherfl Because they have higher qualifications, and since even the lowest paying jobs will fire you unless you work exactally as often as they want you will get fired and that will look bad on a resume. Also what's stopping a job that already pays barely enough from lowering wages? What are you going to do, quit? And if a company has no workers they can't function. If even the lowest skilled jobs need to have a specific wage then the amount that number is doesn't effect the qualifications for hire.

@@RRW359 "Because they have higher qualifications," exactly ... "what's stopping a job that already pays barely enough from lowering wages" lawyers and the law. "if a company has no workers they can't function." Yes, they probably make comments on forums. "If even the lowest skilled jobs need to have a specific wage then the amount that number is doesn't effect the qualifications for hire." Do you think jobs should hire based upon the expenses of the employee?

@@mwatcherfl Why would the law come into effect when they don't require contracts or anything? If you need someone to run the register you need someone to tune the register. It doesn't matter if you are required to pay them $1 or $100 per hour. If nobody takes that job because they are qualified for better ones then they will lower the requirements, but will still need to pay them the same.

By the time we finally get $15, it will be just enough to buy a loaf of bread.

The minimum wage should be at least $100/hour, equal to that of a skilled worker. Why should skilled workers make any more than unskilled? *IT'S NOT FAIR!*

@@RussellNelson Thanks, I beginning to think everyone has lost their minds.

@@RussellNelson Nice Strawman there.

@@mylesbarrett2031 What's wrong with $100/hour that isn't also wrong with $15/hour?

Correct. Workers should union to further their own best interests... Like fair wages.

Except, of course, the only myths are being pushed by Reich (every one is a bald faced lie). Big business pays workers their full value in their *own* interests. As has been repeatedly proven, any attempt to underpay workers results in excessive turnover costs and the company loses money.

@@JensPilemandOttesen But then the companies use every tactic, including physical intimidation, to break up unions. See what happens if a regular worker tries the reverse: i.e. using all of the tactics the corporation uses: they would be thrown in jail. It's NOT a level playing field, or in other words: the game is rigged.

@@rsr789 Yes. It is a struggle. Rights does not come automatically or easy. That is true for ALL rights. It seems US has given up on all civil rights. Women, race, workers, Human rights... But for some reason having a gun is super important!?

@@JensPilemandOttesen You are so STUPID !! You can 'unionized " as much as you want , the bottom line is EMPLOYER, who will contact government and ASKED for GRAND money to compensate for increase in wages , IF NOT he can shot the business and lay off everybody . That is his rights . Government will eat the costs of unemployment and BAD economy . U are FIRED !!

No, its not.

@@brodeize Why not?

@@brodeize I kinda want to know your reasoning there, mate. Even as an economically conservative person, that doesn't make much sense.

@@NoobsofFredo teenager have not much to offer. Dont know if you ever worked yourself/ Or if you ever worked with teenagers and looked at the data. I am all for work from early age. But the value is not the same.The person with anime profile picture is absolutely what expected to be. A third party philosopher who never worked probably in their life but rather know so well how the rest of the world must act.

@@brodeize I'm afraid that I have to respectfully disagree with you. Given that I worked on an assembly line immediately out of high school, as did several classmates of mine, and we had exactly the same productivity as our older coworkers, I can verify that we teenagers had exactly the same to offer as anyone else. That's not even mentioning my classmates who did farm work all throughout high school, who contributed massively.

I would argue teenagers need the money more since it's become expected for them now to get into massive debt immediately after they turn 18.

@@RRW359 Teenagers generally don't have the foresight to think about saving money to afford college with their high school jobs. I've seen teenagers save up for a car but saving for college is a step too far. However in this case perhaps they are wiser than we give them credit for. Massive debt - wages earned working part time as teenger = massive debt Wages earned as a teenager could put a dent in the teenager's college costs. But only a dent and if it's a minimum wage job only a small dent. After college that dent is not going to make much of a difference in the teenager's loan payments where they will find themselves in one of two places: One, they use their education to get a higher paying job and make payments on the debt. Two, they don't find a job and the debt cripples them financially. The wages earned as a teenager won't change either outcome.

@@peterkottke2570 So you're saying teenagers need more money to keep put of debt? Also the reason they don't save for college is because unlike a car they know that with current wages they'll never afford it, plus living options and job options both in college and after are extremely limited without a vehicle.

@@RRW359 exactly.

@@RRW359 I'm saying that teenagers aren't going to save for college as the debt level of college is so high that they are far better off spending money on more immediate needs and just letting the college debt pile up. Teenagers are fed, clothed and housed by their parents. They are not in the same position as an adult who if he does not work will end up in a homeless shelter. The adult must work. The teenager can decide not to work and look for better paying jobs.

Save up and buy your own company, that's the lesson. Most people today, and I hope this isn't you, have thin-skin and have no toughness. Some people, and I'm not saying this is you. But there are some people in America who think that what we should do is take everything from the rich people, instead of trying to teach people how to become rich. So again, the lesson you need to learn is, not how to cry and take things away from your boss that he earned. Try to become a boss.

@@mgtowdadRU-vidSucksCoxks sorry, but might I ask how old you are ? Cause it sounds like you making an argument that is not relevant for today's economy anymore...

@@karlpalmgren6069 You might.

@@mgtowdadRU-vidSucksCoxks Ah right... being an employee sucks and makes life awful, so become a boss and make your employees life hell instead! To be happy you have to be the cause of other people's misery, got it.

@@stillwaitingforblackmetalr2503 I've had Bad Bosses. Bad neighbors. Bad employee. Bad Marines. Bad girlfriends. A bad parent. That doesn't mean that, when I'm in the position to be any of the above mentioned things, I have to be bad at it. In fact, having an example of how not to conduct myself, can now be used as very valuable Insight in the future, and actual things to reflect on when looking back. Or, you know I could be like you. I had a bad boss, so I obviously, without thought needed to be a bad boss too! There's no other way around it is there?

Yeah, it's not like they invest that money into other businesses that use it to hire employees to offer new services to people who will pay for them because it improves their lives... Y'know, because real life isn't some Scrooge McDuck cartoon.

@@thomasmacisaac1503 It certainly sounds like you're living in a cartoon. Rich people don't invest, they hoard cash.

They don’t hide it. They buy property to earn more money by increasing the cost of survival and making their employee class pay them for necessities.

@@DKGifford19608 HOW DARE YOU TRY TO CALL SCROOGE MCFUCK A LANDLORD.

But....doesn't spending money make the economy go brr? Lmao

It sounds more like you are trying to justify your views more than find the right answer

If this guy is smarter than you, I feel really sorry for you

If you believe the lies of Robert Reich, I have some ocean front property on the moon to sell you.

@@jacksonray3596 that’s all liberals ever do these days.

@@RedPillGrimReaper amen.

You want to help people? Get rid of the minimum wage and millions will get employment and gain new skills. Democrats are so stupid. They just sell lies for votes.

Second Thought has an excellent video on wage theft if you search for his video/channel

@@alex0_graham I really just wish more Americans were aware. So many say what we shouldn’t get and who needs to work harder. Meanwhile the rich just steal and get richer.

"Can anyone talk about Wage Theft?" No, it is impossible. If you try, the Earth's magnetic poles will flip with huge earthquakes and tsunamis, so don't do it.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Damnit, I KNEW there was a good reason we weren't talking about this...and not an utterly abysmal, morally bankrupt reason we weren't talking about this...

@@DrTssha ACTUAL wage theft isn't a right wing or left wing thing. Its just greed and a bit of petty larceny. My first job was 50 cents an hour. But I was getting 25. At that wage I should have been getting every penny. But 50 percent was being "withheld" and not delivered to the government as taxes. Everyone else at that restaurant had similar "withholding" and so one day I took a tax book and calculated the actual, legally required withholding and showed it to the staff. I had already quit; the cook quit that same day and I think some of the wait staff quit. A teenager cannot prosecute these things; but a little bit of knowledge goes a long way to karma for the owner.

Reply so this gets pushed up

Honestly they sound no different than the ones who cried how will most industries survive without slavery, or child labor

Yes rich always saying can't afford to pay workers ..... it gets tiring.

Yeah, it's kind of an joke. History has proofed their claims to be false and yet they clinging to them.

thats horseshit you get from whoever tell you increase wage dont increase inflation. if what you claim is true then why dont we just increase min wage to 10million an hour. so we all could be billionaire in couple weeks. no more poor people. everyone is a billionair. you know exactly what will happen if we did that. so horsehit

Yeah and also completely ignore everything else that are the bigger causes in the increased prices, Ukraine covid etc.

You clearly don’t run a business- fact. Businesses know wages that are required to operate their business. - fact. The liberals think they can regulate people out of poverty by forcing business - false. Stupid liberal. -fact.

And higher prices of goods to offset it.

@@jeremeyunger6568 not according to the data

@@jeremeyunger6568 elasticity is very low. so it is not an issue for us economy. dollar is strong. even supply shortages only resulted in %8 inflation. this isn't an issue.

@@jeremeyunger6568 4:26 are you deaf?

@@jeremeyunger6568 Prices increased regardless if stagnant wages, keeping wages stagnant only led to exploitation, skyrocket increase of poor people and spending on welfare

This will make a nice addition to my "videos i send my parents that they will never watch and accuse me of being communist after" playlist

never will happen, best use that energy elsewhere in your community

I would consider a state mandated minimum wage conservative. The liberal and the socialist approach is to let the workers union and employers union agree on a minimum wage, without interference from the state.

Neither side cares about you or your parents.

@@JensPilemandOttesen your overthinking it. A state mandated increase to the minimum wage would immediately materially improve the working peoples' lives. That's what we want.

This is what happens when there are no labor laws and unions are under-mined at every opportunity by the exploiters.

Economists would set the minimum wage at zero haha. Robert Reich isn't an economist

@@jsebby2284 Milton Friedman would set the minimum wage to zero, but his ideas have proven to be nothing but a massive failure.

@@PistonAvatarGuy oh yeah sure totally absolutely positively without a doubt

@@jsebby2284 Friedman's ideas have never been successful anywhere, EVER, and the closer a country moves to a "free market" system, the worse it performs... in every possible way.

It seems intuitive that if inflation is 2-3% every year then the minimum wage should also be raised by that much every year. I'm no economist but I can't wrap my mind around why that isn't the case

​@@RedScareClair A wage rising with only inflation can still become a starving wage. It should at minimum maintain our buying power (which isn't only affected by inflation). The minimum wage should rise with the cost of living.

Hell, even the Australian minimum wage in US dollars is less than $15 an hour. Y’all have the highest in the world, and it’s still only like USD $14.50. If the US raised its minimum wage, it would become the highest in the world.

@@jakefoster5611 For the richest country in the world thats how it should be, but instead the corporate oligarchs have duped millions of people into believing that it cant be done, creating hundreds of millions of people who are perpetually stuck in indentured servitude just to buy food and pay the rent to their masters. The minimum wage in the US should be $20+ an hour, theres no valid reason why it cant be.

The problem is the young people are investing in Cryto and NFT. Instead of unions. Unions and talk s about Workers Rights Universal Healthcare Education and material needs is one step towards Goose stepping. The logic is amazing.

And in fact its inversed when a person have to work two jobs for the same income as a single job worker the double job worker is taking a spot somone else could be taking themselvses

The problem is that your neglecting the fact that when minimum wage goes up there is automatically a raise in the prices of menu items at every fastfood restaurant as well as many other goods and services. So it raises the cost of living for everyone but only provides an increase in pay for the people making minimum wage.

@@red_neckin However is that a causation or just a coincidence, as large corporations even with a increase in labor costs would still be making far more than a small business so while it would make sense for a smaller business to raise prices for financial reasons, for a large corporation to do so would seem to lean towards either the greedy or mismanaged.

@@roberthampton2629 Doesn't stop them from being greedy anyways sadly.

@@sirsteam6455 Not per worker! This is the reason why a large business is large, because they are more economically efficient.

Not it doesn't lol. Because it would cost people their jobs and increase prices

@@jsebby2284 bro did you not watch the video or what

@@cheezbrgr of course I did. It's the same bullshit he always spews lol. What about my comment makes it seem like I didn't eatch the video?

Please explain how it would cost people their jobs and increase prices

@@jsebby2284 Data or it didn't happen.

I don't think that's necessary. People have fear instilled in them via propaganda, but then those fears become their own. I feel like accusing them of being shills would make them defensive.

"I found a good rebuttal for minimum wage counters:" YOu could also try some economics and science. Oh, but that does not work so well. I do not have donors and lobbyists; but I have instead a good understanding of economics.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Knowing more economics would lead you to support minimum wage increases, due to labor market monopsonies, that are widespread in the economy.

@@anthonytom-duyquang3558 "Knowing more economics would lead you to support minimum wage increases, due to labor market monopsonies, that are widespread in the economy." No. Well I suppose if I had that weird, unproven blend of stupidity called socialist economics maybe I would think things of this sort. A minimum wage creates a *wedge* in the demand and supply curves. It results in unemployability of any skill whose actual worth happens to be less than the minimum wage. The CORRECT minimum wage is zero. The market will then determine actual wage equivalence for each kind of labor. HOWEVER, just as governments can distort economics, so can major employers and corporations, SO a modest minimum wage is a compromise necessitated by the fact that a pure market economy does not exist and probably cannot exist. But then, socialism also cannot exist and never has; not for long.

@@thomasmaughan4798 So...leave people to be poor? Have them starving? Where would be your "workforce" then if they're all too weak or dead?

Amazing to see another who trade with Mr Edmund John Brock , I'm currently on my 5th trade with him and my portfolio has grown tremendously. His weekly signals are highly profitable

I invest with Mr Edmund too, he charges a 20%commission on profit made after every trading session which is fair compare to the effort he put in to make huge profits.

This is not the first time I'm hearing about Mr Edmund John Brock and his exploits in the trading world but i have no idea how to reach out to him

As a first time investor I started trading with, Mr Edmund , I personally appreciate his straight and simple approach towards educating traders. My portfolio has grown more within just weeks of trading with him.

@@avagarcia9643 you can communicate with him on tel'gram via 👇👇👇

Most adults spend a majority of their lives at work. Selling your time to a richer person for the right to live is not freedom.

Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage

@@scottmolnar4132 Franklin Roosevelt would say otherwise, considering he passed the minimum wage I think his opinion outweighs yours.

@@fatguy6153 considering the minimum wage was not a living wage when it was created, it doesn’t really matter what FDR wanted or hoped it would be

@@modernmind5872 It is indeed not freedom but at least not starving is a good first step. We leftists must not only push for revolution, but for better living conditions even under capitalism.

"let's be honest" Are you volunteering to be the first person on this page to do that?

Why not $50/hr?

@@thomasmacisaac1503 The number should come from an agreement between workers and employers.

@@thomasmacisaac1503 bow to your rich masters like a good slave

@@JensPilemandOttesen 😘

@@thomasmacisaac1503 Why not five? It’s always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but in many areas, a salary of 40,000 dollars a year provides a minimal standard of living. In other areas, it will have to be more.

Except minimum wage jobs aren't starting points for most people, not anymore. Half the country works in near minimum wage jobs. That's a systemic problem, not an individual one. How do you build skills if you don't make enough to survive?

You do understand that RU-vid frowns certain words, so it ISN'T the Left that is scared of your arguments. Instead try to write your comment in a different way. And keep the insults away.

@Bob Smith So how would you use crypto to solve all our societal issues?

The problem, of course, is that those trying to make a living have absolutely no problem doing so (the median full time worker makes more than $26/hr) and federal minimum wage workers (only 0.11% of the US workforce) are overwhelmingly tudents (more than 80%), part time (74%) and under the age of 25 (nearly two-thirds with the next largest cohort being retirees earning supplemental income). The question you should ask yourself is why (despite the disproved nonsense that makes up the entirety of Reich's claims) you are "fighting" for a policy that has never been anything but harmful to workers, never once either increasing pay levels or preventing them from falling and, instead, resulting only in disemployment (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss), *increasing* unemployment, *increasing* poverty, *increasing* welfare rolls and the cost to taxpayers and *DECREASING* the financial resources available to impacted workers. It has even been shown to undermine the long term earnings prospects of low wage workers.

@@FletchforFreedom The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which included a minimum wage of 25 cents, was part of the recovery from the Great Depression. At the time, 25 cents meant “more than a mere subsistence level…the wages of decent living,” as FDR said. This policy increased the purchasing power of many workers, which meant economic recovery. So the workers received the benefits of a higher wage *and* a better economy. This law also included the 40 hour workweek and the end of child labor. If a business would rather lay off employees than pay a decent living wage, that says as much about the business as it does about the government and the employee. Many capitalist sympathizers take the FLSA for granted. To them, any government oversight is “communism,” but without it, we’d have 10-year-olds working 12 hour shifts in factories instead of school. Now, some might say, “But I’m a skilled worker! Why should I care about unskilled workers?” If they were living in the late 1800s or early 1900s, they may not have been able to go to school and learn that skill. They would’ve instead been working to support their family because both their parents couldn’t make a living off of the meager wages paid by their employers.

@@ultraviolet7838 Just how stupid are you? The FLSA, like the rest of the New Deal did not contribute to any recovery. In fact, FDR objectively prolonged the Depression for at least seven years. Worse, you have taken the words of a politician over objective fact - which isn't very bright. The initial minimum wage amounted to no more than $5.18/hr in today's dollars. There does not exist a calculus in which it was more than that. So, either $5.18/hr is "more than subsistence level" or FDR was just another lying politician. There is no possible third option, Choose. In addition, the policy increased the purchasing power of precisely no one as there has never been so much as a single instance in which minimum wage laws have ever resulted in anything but disemployment (the research is nearly unanimous on this point). You simply have no clue what you are talking about and are aggressively ignorant. And it is an absolute fact that it was capitalism - and *ONLY* capitalism that resulted in the material improvement in worker pay, working conditions and prosperity, including the shorter work week, the 8 hour day, and the effective end of starvation, poverty as it was understood as recently as a century and a half ago and child labor. These are things that are completely alien to you, They're called "facts" or, if you prefer, objective recorded history. Only an idiot references a "living wage" as if it were a real thing (or relevant to this discussion) as no one making such wages are trying to make a living off them, being overwhelmingly students, part-time workers and under 25 years of age. It isn't a question of what a business would "rather" do. They have no choice. It is a proven fact that it is objectively impossible for the business to pay less than the full value of the provided labor services. The business will happily hire as many workers as possible that will generate for them at least the minimum return. Some moron imposing a price floor above that value level means that the business loses money on that worker (and it's not a charity) so the worker gets the shaft not because of the "greedy" businessman but because of the intellectually bankrupt virtue signaler that wants to show they want to "help people" rather than learn something about the insidious policy they want to impose on everyone. No one with a grasp of economics, history or reality need worry about taking the FLSA for granted as it objectively provided no value to anyone. No one suggests that it is "communism". It is, certainly, socialism by definition and it has never been anything but harmful to workers, particularly the most vulnerable among them, and the economy as a whole. In the 19th century in the US, in the complete absence of labor laws and before the rise of union power (after 1880), real wages *QUADRUPLED,* working conditions improved dramatically, the average work week was slashed by a third and continued to fall, the 8 hour day came into existence and began becoming widely available and child labor which has approached 100% (agrarian society) plummeted to fewer than 1-in-3 boys and 1-in-8 girls and continued to fall (the remainder still overwhelmingly employed on family farms). these facts demonstrate the complete and irredeemable imbecility of the notion that regulations of any kind prevented the continuation of 12 hour shifts, supposedly for pennies. And, in fact, school participation continued to rise throughout the period as the prosperity of capitalism made it possible for families to forego the incomes of children. Try doing some actual research before making such a complete fool of yourself.

@@FletchforFreedom - The numbers show they do not cut jobs, are you really this dense. Wages have been increased regularly since minimum wage was introduced until recently and no substantive effect on the work force. IN fact the workforce has GROWN and unemployment is rather low (disclaimer, fewer kids are being born which could change this in the future). Higher wages = more expendable income= more spending or self improvement. Meanwhile companies are seeing record profits with no benefits to their workforce. - First inflation is up globally. Of 100 developed an developing economies around 70+% saw increase of 5% or higher. Where is America? About middle of the pack. Better than sweden worse than germany. No policy put forth by by biden is going to have this affect globally and the fact you seem to believe that shows your bias. - Second minimum wage is NOT 0.15% of the work force it is 1.5%. TEN TIMES more than your claim as of 2020 which s the most recent I could find www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm So actually closer to 2.5 million workers - As for the median worker, with CEO's that on average make 350% more than their lowest employee. MAY want to ask how much that throws off that number especially when you have 1/3 of the workforce earning less than $15 per hour. With the average cost of living being $3,189 per month which MEANS $20/ hour is needed on average to LIVE in the US. So 1/3 of the work force can't afford to LIVE in the US. Cost of living: www.upwardli.com/resources/new-to-america-what-is-the-average-monthly-cost-of-living-in-usa Workforce under $15: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/federal-minimum-wage-1-in-3-us-workers-make-less-than-15-an-hour www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/the-crisis-of-low-wages-in-the-us/ Pull you head out of your right wing silo and take a look around please. And post some links / sources if you are going to spout this nonsense on every thread.

So true, which is why Amazon, etc fight unionization so strongly.

What is needed are unions on the European model. Organisations that educate working people and employers on the right way to develop and nurture workers in a defined, open and transparent career paths with agreed rates of pay applicable to each target and milestones reached by each employee. All too often people are left in dead-end jobs which arrive at the highly destructive model of "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". Badly run and poorly invested businesses struggle through crisis after crisis many of them facing a final crisis until bankruptcy and closure. I have seen this often in many workplaces where mediocre or downright malevalent management fight out a spiral to self destruction and final closure while other more visionary and competent companies work together as a coherent team and stay afloat in the hard times and thrive in the good times. In small communities people move jobs to the better employers and leave the bad employers. This leads to increased training costs and recruitment costs for these bad employers. Worker employer relationships are a cpmplex and difficut subject often fraught with dangerous emotions and conflict, in extreme cases leading to violence. I have seen this a few times in my life and hope not to see it again.

Those in a Union are more likely to go on strike as well like what is happening in the U.K at the moment. The railway workers are on strike at the moment and now we have Bus workers, Barristers, Teachers, Doctors and nurses talking about going on strike as well.

@@samanthahardy9903 Many people are conditioned to see strikes as a bad thing but in reality strikes are a form of disciplinary action against dysfunctional management or company owners. You cannot have a good working relationship in any organisation unless you have accountability on both sides and the power to implement sanctions against the erring partner. For employers this is hiring and firing rights, for employees this is the right to withdraw labour in an organised and cohesive way. Without these rights employees are little better than slaves.

@@jgdooley2003 Don't get me wrong. I think the strikes are much more effective than just simply going on a protest march. The last time we had these multiple strikes back in the 1980's wages went up for a lot of people. I'm all for the strikes because the general public have had enough of being treated like slaves on slave wages, whilst big companies make huge profits. The big companies have forgotten that without the ones at the bottom doing most of the hard work they would not have a business to make any profits in the first place. It's about time people rose up to go on strike and hit the big companies where it hurts, their profits. The MPs got decent pay rises and more than likely have dividend payouts from holding shares in the big companies. They've hit our pockets too often and it's about time the tables are turned!

You’re assuming that the business heads/shareholders think logically and won’t flip their s### when they see the upfront cost.

@@bensoncheung2801 hahahah true 😂

It's not just that many businesses are poorly run (which is true), there are at least two other problems: - There's a delay between when your labor costs go up and when the positive effects on revenue begin to be felt, and in today's capitalist economies everyone is operating on an extremely short time horizon. One quarter of falling profits when your competitors are unaffected is enough to undermine confidence in a CEO or dry up liquidity and credit access for narrow-margin small businesses - To the extent that some of the increased labor costs need to be passed through to higher prices, an individual business will put themselves at a disadvantage by raising pay when their competitors do not. This is mostly relevant to small businesses. So it's a coordination problem, best resolved by regulation. (Yes, I'm saying that some of the labor cost increase may be passed through to higher prices. Don't get your panties in a bunch and just pay 50 cents more for your burger.)

Wage increase is bad for short term profits. And many companies focus on short term profits.

"this video needs to be played at Every Business in America" And in your perfect world, it would be! Pro Choice much? No. No choice for anyone but you.

He's telling the lies that keep those foolish enough to fall for his disproven drivel in poverty.

The thing is minimum wage workers now DO NOT produce anymore value than the same workers 50 years ago so their wages should not be pushed up for no reason. The whole "productivity has increased" is a blanket statement that does not necessarily apply to all workers, tell me how is a supermarket clerk more productive now then 50 years ago? What extra layers of value/productivity did they produce? If you were to argue the same point for high skill jobs like engineers then i would agree, engineers now produce much more value (see technological advances, increased project load/output due to tech).. So in the end that argument only applies to some jobs

​@@yt_nh9347 cost of living rose, so people need to be paid more. hope that helps

@@yt_nh9347 I don't care. At a minimum, the minimum wage metric has not kept pace with inflation. And whether the metrics of productivity apply equally to everyone equal or not, I don't care. Minimum wage should be $24-25 and if I ever have any ability to change it directly either through voting or from holding office I'll do everything in my power to do so. I do allow for small business exception of $15 because I understand that they may have a very low profit margin and I want to be sensitive to that. Other than that, no. If employers don't like it they can go jump out of an airplane without a chute for all I care. People have the right NOT to live in poverty and NOT to constantly have to struggle and scrape and be on the edge of homelessness and eviction every moment of their lives. Those accustomed to being at the top or doing the exploiting clearly get used to thinking their greed deserves to be satisfied. Even when they have millions or even billions to their name, that's still not enough for them. How many unions have had to go on strike over the past 2 to 3 years representing tens of thousands of workers in various fields; some skilled, some less so, all because their management structure and/or company owners refuse to compensate them ethically and appropriately and treat them with respect? When people on the bottom or in the rank and file ask for more, you or others in management act like they have no right. I don't know about you personally, but a lot of those people seem actually shocked or offended at the idea that the plebs would dare demand better than whatever current shit deal they're currently being given. I mean how dare the slaves revolt amirite??? I mean they should be grateful to the employer for providing them a job with which to support their miserable existence on amirite?? I mean God forbid the workers turn to the job creators with anything other pure slavish devotion and a tacit understanding that they should never dare step out of their place amirite??? You may think I'm exaggerating but I bet if you could hear the inner monologue of these trash pieces of crap, I'm not far off from the truth. The constant greed or desire for more from the upper echelon is always presented to broader society as perfectly fine, but those on the bottom or in the middle asking for modest gains is NOT, according to these assholes. The logic of the wealthy and those in the executive class is always so convenient isn't it? Now perhaps you personally would defend skilled workers getting a better deal. And if that's true I say good for you, glad you're on board. But I'm not going to neglect those on the bottom either. Everyone has to start somewhere in life. Most people look forward to increasing their skills, but they shouldn't have to wait to get a living wage until they can meet with precious management's approval to now be deemed worthy enough to get paid something they can make an ok living on. People who oppose me on this issue act like those with low skills DESERVE to struggle meeting their basic needs or and deserve not to have basic economic security and have to go without, because it's some kind of divine will or some other "Doctrine of the Rich" self-justifying nonsense. Well, not if I ever have anything to say about it. I DON'T CARE WHETHER LABOR IS LOW OR HIGH SKILLED. NO OWNER AND NO SECTOR OF MANAGEMENT DESERVES TO PROFIT FROM THE EXPLOITATION OF THEIR WORKERS ON ANY LEVEL. All pay does not have to be the same and I'm not suggesting that, but it does have to be fair and provide a proper floor for all workers. You people act like workers are robots and don't have to eat, pay rent, and LIVE. I mean really what in the living fuck is wrong with you people???? DO YOU THINK WORKERS ARE ROBOTS? Do you think they live in some fantasyland where everything is free??? Have you never had to actually work in your lifetime?

@@yt_nh9347 The REASON is basic decency and morals and respecting the human beings who have no choice at the moment but to take those lower skilled positions. It's called having a conscience and caring about one's fellow man. THAT'S THE REASON. It's about acknowledge the humanity and the rights of human beings who WORK. IT'S ABOUT GIVING PEOPLE DIGNITY. If you can't see that then there's a problem with your moral outlook on the universe.

"a minimum wage should be $23-26 right now." Make it a million dollars an hour. Makes no difference. Many hours of your unskilled labor is traded for one hour of my skilled labor and knowledge. How you denominate the trade makes no difference.

Wage ratio makes the most sense imo. Best businesses would pay more and bad businesses would close because nobody would want to work for $4/hr.

Setting wage ratios is ineffective, because the form of compensation typically will be manipulated obscuring total income for those in power.

Wage ratio laws will never happen. We live in a capitalist, free market society where the gov't is forbidden, at least in principle if not on paper, to interfere with private businesses in that manner. Not to mention that the Republicans would pitch a complete hissy if they ever tried to do anything like that. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's simply not doable.

@@keithcraig506 we're not in now nor have we or any other country ever been a fully capitalist nation. Even just the existence of minimum wage is antithetical to capitalism. Not to mention also government subsidies to the oil and agriculture industries in our own current system. So you can't just argue we can't do it because free market capitalism when that's not the system we have.

@@anthonydelfino6171 I didn't say "fully capitalist", but I did say "at least in principle". It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. I understand what you're saying, that the gov't should dictate what a person can earn. I know that's not what you said, but that's how a lot of people will take it. At the very least what you're suggesting would be considered government over reach. It also be considered as straying a little to close to the communism line, which a lot of people would freak out about. It would also be political suicide if they attempted to do that. We'd have to reverse Citizen's United before they'd even think of going that far. Ever since the Citizen's United SCotUS decision the corporations, and the people at the top of those corps, have a death grip on our government. I'm not against the idea, but the reality here is that it will never happen. Not as long as the corporations have free rein to pump as much money as they want into the system and not as long as the majority of the right wing is so adamantly opposed to anything that smacks even the tiniest bit of socialism / communism.

And also why would everyone’s pay across the scale have to go up? CEOs here already make the highest of anywhere else in the world. Hell at a certain level the pay should be decreased

@@matthewcromer5399 honestly just cap it after a point. Yknow like how regular employees are capped after a certain year? Cap them too. Also imho if you're a ceo of a company you should only hold that position for 10 years max. There's zero reason why anyone at that level should be there any longer.

Well, your family was wrong but then so are you. Minimum wage laws do not result in inflation except in the very short term until the market adjusts. It does result in higher prices in impacted industries but the real impact has always been disemployment (cuts in hours, benefits and training and outright job loss), *increasing* unemployment, *increasing* poverty, *increasing* welfare rolls and the cost to taxpayers and *decreasing* the financial resources available to impacted workers. So, no, the notion that a minimum wage hike results in more money to be spent at the employer's store is factually wrong. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who keeps your job; maybe you won't see your hours cut; maybe the store won't close two hours earlier during its least efficient hours where the higher ay level can't justify remaining open (or even close altogether); maybe you won't see your perks and benefits cut. Maybe none of those things will happen to you (as unlikely as that is). But, in the aggregate, *ALL* of those things will happen to some workers so that the benefit received by the lucky few like you will be more than offset by their losses. That is simply an empirical fact.

@@FletchforFreedom then that's not due to raising minimum wages thats just corporate greed as discussed. There's zero reason to cut employee hours if the company is making a profit. If you disagree that's fine you're wrong but that's fine to have an opinion. So I'd disagree that you don't think people won't spend their money back to the company. Most people who work retail shop at the same store they work at due to convenience and employee discounts. It won't be the full check(because that's ludicrous) but they still make money. A corporation making millions in profit doesn't have any right or valid reason to cut hours, benefits, or jobs in general. Once a company starts actually losing money then they'd have some validity however if there's a profit that profit SHOULD go to the employees. But instead of increased pays that factor to a better economy it lines corporate pockets and employees get a pizza party. Yay..... So no increasing min/workers wages don't actually harm the economy as pointed out.

@@Draco7876 There is no greater certainty in life than that if you come across the phrase "corporate greed" you have found a complete economic illiterate,. The company is in business in order to make at least a minimum profit (the cost of the provision of capital and the assumption of risk). Only a blithering idiot would suggest that a a profit below that level is sufficient (perhaps a Marxist idiot - but I repeat myself - stupid enough to believe that profit was created by the worker). As has been empirically proven, it is impossible in the (abundantly evident) competitive market for labor to underpay workers so, obviously, setting a price floor above that invariably means that the the employer does not realize sufficient return to justify retaining that worker, It's simple math. I am not responsible for your aggressive ignorance. As, again, the workers that are unable to meet that threshold will be inevitably put out of work (because only a blithering idiot would suggest that a business is a charity and should happily lose money on any investment), the simple reality is that the losses experienced by some workers invariably (and this too is the only outcome consistent with both basic economics and literally all of the empirical evidence) outweigh the benefits retained by the few and there are no new dollars to be spent in the economy. Moreover, the notion that paying your own workers more means they will buy more of *YOUR* own products is asinine in the extreme. Let's pay more to the gay man working at a tampon factory. He'll lift our sales! The entire premise is idiotic. Even employees who shop at their place of employment only spend a fraction of their earnings there so paying those workers more would cost the company a given amount only a fraction of which they would get back. Of course, you have never and will never run a business given the business ineptitude you've mentioned. No one with a grasp of economics business, reality or math beyond the fingers and toes level looks at raw profits as if they say anything of value. What matters is profit margins. If a company makes $1 million in profits on $1 billion in sales will rapidly go out of business as no one will invest in an operation that yields only a 0.1% return and everyone there will soon find themselves out of work. Companies employing minimum wage workers are typically in the fast food and retail arenas where profit margins run in the 3% and under range, barely enough to cover the cost of capital. So no, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about and your making the factually wrong assertion that increasing minimum wages don't actually harm the economy doesn't make that claim any less monumentally stupid. But, hey, thanks for playing!

yes it does, ofcourse not directly but in the long run it does

@@divinefavour1289 ...You're obviously a Conservative who's in love with austerity.

@@user-em6ie2be7x not a conservative, whatever that means

As John Kenneth Galbraith once said, trickle down theory is the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. I think that says it all.

@QB5 i really dont think you should listen to bush for economic advice, he is part of the reason the US economy is in the state it's in

"Is it a coincidence that Texas also has the largest number of children living in poverty and the highest percentage of people without health insurance? I dont think so" I also don't think so. It is more likely its proximity to Mexico.

But Texas is so very “business friendly” 🤦‍♀️ Just not employee friendly?

Work hard. Make you’re self the most valuable employee. Go to your boss, and ask-“what can I do to double my pay?” They will give you a plan.

Jobs will be lost because liberal government wants to put equity over opportunity

"high 8% inflation we've had for a year and a half now." You can thank People of the Left and the increase in minimum wage to $15 which requires to increase price on everything in order to pay employees. It is a game that People of the Left cannot win. It is impossible. Many have tried.

@@thomasmaughan4798 no, inflation is due to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. The minimum wage is still $7.25 in half the country.

The cost of living has nothing to do with what the minimum wage is. nothing is affordable for minimum wage workers.

@@scifirealism5943 " nothing is affordable for minimum wage workers." It depends on where you live although in the past year I might have to agree with your assessment. So what actually happens? Suppose there was zero minimum wage and you could not live? Well then you die. Workers die. Then who does the work? Nobody. Naturally, a scarcity of labor increases the price of labor (ie, wages). This is known as the Iron Law of Wages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages Now in the United States it is preferred to NOT simply have surplus labor die, particularly seasonal labor that is idle right now but will be needed every year. This is why some forms of socialism arise naturally in norther latitudes. The problem of "nothing affordable" to minimum wage workers DOES NOT CHANGE if you raise the minimum wage. All prices simply rise. They already have. They will again.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Prices of everything has risen with the minimum wage remaining stagnant so I don't know why you think the MW will do that.

waaaaaaaaaaaaahhh

Then unionize and strike for a decent wage.

If you can't afford it you can't have it. It's what poor people were told for decades. But if a business owner is told the same the tears start falling. Take the salt elsewhere.

Liberals think the can legislate people out of poverty. No. Individuals need to pull themselves out of poverty

Hey, I might try using that short story, it’s very powerful.

"He slips 11 of the doughnuts into his pocket." Obviously they are very small doughnuts.

This retarded analogy aside, maybe you could employ your own insight to see that one of the things they use to keep us fighting is class and that you're taking the bait.

Billionaires are only created AFTER creating millions of jobs buddy. Nice try. It’s ok. Liberals can’t ever do logic, truth, or math.

This man tells people to vote for the Democratic party. The Democrats have had COMPLETE control of government since 2020. They have NOT raised the minimum wage. Therefore he is telling people to vote for a party that will NEVER raise the minimum wage. How smart is that? Vote Green party.

He isnt... ive seen the same arguments from some idiot on reddit of all places.....

69 👍 2👻💬

The man is a non-economist and congenital liar (every claim he makes here has been debunked for decades). What does he need protection from? Reality? His head would explode.

This guy is just throwing #s at everyone without references and validity. In other words he was blowing smoke.

And you will still be wrong

@@jsebby2284 yes I’m sure you applaud the minimum wage staying at $7.25 permanently wouldn’t you

@@JETAlone12 $15 federal minimum wage is estimated to cost $1.3 million jobs. The cost of living varies across the country. Let states and localities decided minimum wage. Not federal. This is incredibly easy and a simple concept to understand

@@StephySon yes the federal minimum wage is the minimum for the cheapest part of the country. The cost of living varies too much in this country to be doubling the federal minimum wage. Let the states and localities decide their minimum wage. This is incredibly easy to understand. Such a simple concept.

@@jsebby2284 Brilliant, so what your saying is your willing to live and work on those wages? Oh what’s that your not? Yeah I fucking thought so

17 percent? That seems low ball to me. On average price of everything DOUBLES every 15 years.

You proceed from a false premise. The workers now making the minimum wage were effectively unemployable in 2009 and those that could earn as much are already making more. As a result, the average worker makes 14% more than they did in 2009 and the number of workers making the federal minimum has plummeted by 82% to a whopping 181,000 workers (0.11% of the labor force) as workers have no problem at all being fully compensated for the value of their labor services.

@@FletchforFreedom why can't we raise minimum wage so nobody has to work for 7.25?

@@puellamservumaddominum6180 Because the alternative to not working for $7.25 in those cases is generally not working at all. Oh, sure, some few will retain their jobs (if not necessarily their hours) and likely be asked t do more as a consequence but that's not much consolation for those that have their hours or benefits cut or lose their job outright, How are we to tell someone that it is better that no one have to work for $7.25 if it means they are out of work? It would be wonderful if we could just wave a magic wand (pass a law) an instantly the lowest paid workers would make more but this is the real world and no such thing has ever happened.

@@FletchforFreedom do you really think companies keep extra staff on doing nothing? Companies already have trimmed jobs to bare minimum in order to give their executives bonuses.

Minimum is zero because we don’t hire people who are not worth it

BRUH IM LEGIT OUT HERE PLOTTIN FOR A 20$ an hour job and u devalued it by providing a valid number noooo jts fuckin crazy

It should be pegged to local CPI of housing, groceries, utilities, and healthcare. Should be at least $19 per hour in Pete Creek, Nebraska and $30 per hour in San Francisco.

@@user-nf9xc7ww7m Or not because you being lazy is not a reason to pay people more

Democracy is built on compromise. At least our system anyway.

The thing is minimum wage workers now DO NOT produce anymore value than the same workers 50 years ago so their wages should not be pushed up for no reason. The whole "productivity has increased" is a blanket statement that does not necessarily apply to all workers, tell me how is a supermarket clerk more productive now then 50 years ago? What extra layers of value/productivity did they produce? If you were to argue the same point for high skill jobs like engineers then i would agree, engineers now produce much more value (see technological advances, increased project load/output due to tech).. So in the end that argument only applies to some jobs

@@yt_nh9347 Wrong! The direct answer to, "...tell me how is a supermarket clerk more productive now then 50 years ago?" is that 50 years ago we did not have self checkout stations. One clerk can now oversee 6 or more customers checking out. If you want to argue people who work essential jobs are not worth more, how do you justify the outrageous increases in CEO pay over the last 50 years? Guess what? I'm an Engineer and Engineering pay has remained flat since 1972 adjusted for cost of living. As technology improves, more stuff gets made with fewer people; no reason that the productivity boost cannot be shared by all. We should make paid time off mandatory and increase it as productivity goes up in order to spread the jobs around. Almost all of the productivity gains in the last 50 years have gone to the FIRE sector.

@@yt_nh9347 Whatever the company still loses 20$/hr by getting rid of the employee.

@@yt_nh9347 they are not pushed up for no reason, minimum wage needs to be increased to cover cost of living and inflation. The cost of everything doubles on average EVERY fifteen years. Are you saying people should not get a raise ever again? That people should still be making 7.25 an hour in 2037 and than again in 2052 when everything costs 4 times what it does now?

Thank you for at least attempting an intelligent comment (the first I've seen today). "I have heard that demand for minimum wage labor is inelastic" Incorrect; it depends on the industry. Industries that provide non-essentials are the most sensitive to various costs, of which labor is sometimes the greatest cost, but not always. Food growing is relatively inelastic for demand but only in the short term. As labor costs rise, mechanization takes over. "Also, it is nonsense that a Walmarts or a McDonalds would cut staff due to a minimum wage hike because these businesses already operate with lean staffing to begin with." Walmart made a huge cut in FULL TIME staff. Some are still called full time but by putting them under 32 hours a week, fall out of labor law pertaining to full time workers. www.indeed.com/cmp/Walmart/faq/as-a-full-time-employee-in-walmart-can-they-lower-my-hours-to-less-than-32-hours?quid=1c3cvt9ecak57dlv "Anyone who suggests that minimum wage hikes lead to job loss is suggesting that businesses are keeping excess staff around they don't need but will not be able to afford if wage costs go up; nonsense!" It depends on what these workers produce. If doubling their wage makes their product non-competitive in a global market, the company simply goes out of business and then where are they? Where are the American workers making Craftsman tools? Oh, there aren't any. It's now Chinese. "If a Walmarts or McDonalds cuts staff, they risk losing customers due to poor service." And goes out of business entirely. Seen a Sears lately? K-Mart? Probably not. "I once calculated that the average Walmart worker adds about $35/hour in revenue to the company income statement" That's it? The usual industry estimate is that a worker should be worth four times his stated salary. This is called "load"; the company not only pays my salary, but the company share of retirement benefits, 401k, the rental value of where I sit or stand as I work. "Commonly, the fully loaded cost of an employee is at least twice his or her salary. This is why consultants charge so much more than regular employees:" www.nngroup.com/articles/loaded-cost-of-employee-time/ "so cutting a worker making $10/hour because that worker is lifted to $15/hour does not make economic sense." But cutting HOURS while adding more employees DOES make economic sense. It reduces the "load" cost of the employees.

It;s neither optimal nor happening. The "subsidization myth has been completely disproved for decades and minimum wage laws actually increase poverty, welfare rolls and the cost to taxpayers.

@@FletchforFreedom Because the rich TELLS you that it has been disproven. Long story short, the rich wants to stay rich. Anything that cuts into their profits is an automatic disaster to them.

@@FletchforFreedom you're a troll

Poverty is a policy choice. The government requires grocery stores to accept food stamps but does not require the workers themselves to not need them.

@@scifirealism5943 Since, of course, minimum wage laws objectively increase poverty....

Investing in stocks is a good idea, a good trading system would puts you through many days of success.

@@carlahouston1222 It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However, most of us tend to pay more attention to the shiniest position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.

Having monitored my portfolio performance which has made a jaw dropping $360k from just the past two quarters alone, i have learned why experienced traders makes enormous returns from the seemingly unknown market.

@@franklyanthony1314 Interesting. I've a lump sum doing absolutely nothing at all in my bank account, i wanna gets something started with it. You seem to be doing excellent for yourself, how do you achieve this?

Exactly, the trick is to diversify your investment, don't panic when everyone else do and invest consistently.

I dont think he's ever been right lol

@@jsebby2284 it's a good thing facts don't care what you think.

@@silentbob7959 it's a good thing facts and logic are on my side

@@silentbob7959 Reich (and apparently you) wouldn't recognize a fact if its incisors were buried in your gluteal muscles (have mommy look up the big words for you).

No. Thomas sowell is the truth teller, not stupid Robert

Getting Money is an issue that everyone has in order to live a better and more luxurious life. Life was difficult for me until I began trading stocks and am now earning a lot of money even with the current crash happening in the trading market, I still make gains using a better strategy.

How? I'm new to stocks investing; could you kindly walk me through how you did it?

Every financial goal requires patience, dedication and consistent spirit knowing that trading/investment is currently the most lucrative business in the world, both Stocks, Real estate and Crypto shares are really positively changing people's lives all this i learnt through Williams T. Kevin.

@@RDavid. You can communicate with him on telegam with the user name below.

@@RDavid. Earnwithkevin.

Democrats are that dumb.

Correct.

Well, that or ... hire fewer employees to do more work, or replace the employees with automation.

@@mwatcherfl Again, if possible would have done it already PRIOR to any wage increase. Automation and the cost of servicing those machines will in the end cost the employer far more than they'd pay a minimum wage worker. Automation is another myth. Same with fewer employees, businesses will automatically hire the least number of employees possible, but they can only cut their staff so much. They need a certain number of people to get the job done, so they will not cut further even with a wage increase. And, in case you haven't noticed, the wage has not increased yet in many areas of the U.S. and businesses have already cut jobs to the bare minimum.

@@Serenadesong "Again, if possible would have done it already PRIOR to any wage increase." You know what happens when the price of goods increases? People buy less of them. If you had a budget of $100 and it buys 10 lbs of widgets, and you need 10 lbs of widgets, you buy 10 lbs of widgets. But when you have $100 and the price of widgets allows you to buy 9 lbs of widgets, you make do with 9 lbs of widgets, even though you need 10. "Same with fewer employees, businesses will automatically hire the least number of employees possible, but they can only cut their staff so much. They need a certain number of people to get the job done, so they will not cut further even with a wage increase. And, in case you haven't noticed, the wage has not increased yet in many areas of the U.S. and businesses have already cut jobs to the bare minimum." No, they haven't. That's why they can lay off a bunch of employees and freeze additional hiring. Employers don't hire the least they can hire. They hire as many as they can afford for the return on investment for the hires. Even small shops will change a receptionist out for an automated attendant. An elevator operator becomes redundant. 20 employees on a department store floor becomes 10. Becomes fewer as people don't visit and the cost of hiring everyone goes up, which means the price of goods goes up for everyone along the supply chain. It makes no sense that employers hire the minimum number of employees they need for all time. And yes, they can hire more if they have to, or make employment redundancies when necessary. But further, it makes increasingly less sense to hire employees at all when fiverr exists.

you don’t need to cut employees, because they would be more productive, thus making you more money. So why half of the employees when you could instead make 2x more money and the cost of wages and revenue would balance each other out (and probably give you a higher profit as the video suggests).

Reich doesn't see reality much like most delusional leftists.

The "Right" and the Rich make sense in addressing when it comes to brainwashing, however Centrists? Centrists unlike the prior two are not unified in general agreement or motive and vary to a greater extend the differencing features that distinguishes them from the "Left" and "Right" is the fact they often agree with one and the other on different topics and versa thus making Centrists a random assortment of beliefs.

@@sirsteam6455 Centrist democrats almost always lean republican on all issues. They're basically democrat in name only but are a functional republican. Centrist Republicans don't exist because all republicans in office generally just go with their party's talking points and messages, and the same goes for their voting base.

@@asimovstarling8806 Thats simply not true, unless you are talking about politicians in which that is more correct, however for the voter that assessment isn't correct, and given the rarity and lack of centrists and centrist thought , and the fact unlike republicans or democrats centrists can fall anywhere on any subject it is hard to classify. it also doesn't help when self reported centrists aren't centrists but I digress

Like the rich guy Jeff Basoz who is advocating for a minimum wage increase lol You guys are so naive.

@@emperorpicard4901 sounds like you're the naive one. He's the person whose company patented a cage on a mechanical arm to move workers from one station to another without letting them leaving their appointed task for anything, and that includes preventing bathroom breaks and food breaks. He patented and tried to force recording devices on his workers that they had to where everywhere. They aren't just his employees, they're also a product he wants to sell. Get your facts straight before you call any one naive maggot.

"We need an equal minimum wage for ALL workers." Why?

Your first sentence is exactly the point. It's why only large businesses, conglomerates, and corporations, push minimum wages, along with ignorant leftist. Who pretend to be anti-corporation....

You must work at my company. Years of 2% "raises" and two years without a raise at all. But the owner makes tens of millions of dollars a year.

@@warthog473 Same with the company I work for, it must happen a lot. The CEO's explanation as to why it's only a 2% raise is just insulting

@@warthog473Lol yes. We may actually work for the same company 🤣

Do not take my word, or his word for it. Neither of us are economist. If you want to know the effects of minimum wage, and what are myths and are not myths go ask an economist. Someone who has at least a master's or higher about it. Not me or someone who studied law, even if he was secretary of labor, he is not an economist.