Thursday, January 22, 2015

Minimum Wage Job Losses Recognized By MSNBC

This is pretty amazing, an MSNBC host actually recognizes that an increase in the minimum wage will result in job losses.

MSNBC's Mellisa Harris-Perry does a pretty decent job here.

The conversation deteriorates quickly when the other talking heads are brought into the discussion, but her intro comments, given they are made on MSNBC, are pretty impressive.




-RW

11 comments:

  1. Not much discussed about how Minimum wage laws put small businesses at an extreme disadvantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice how the progressives used, as their example of how minimum wage won't hurt business or even helps business, the Gap. That's right. One of the largest apparel chains in the US. Democrats love big, established, status-quo businesses.

      Delete
  2. Follow through that thinking by a proponent of raising minimum wage...jobs are lost, but those remaining will get more money! Unfortunately, not enough to profit, since costs automatically rise due to those who will not lose a nickel - property owners/landlords, utility companies/stockholders, all the beneficiaries of a trickle-up economy. Don't forget that costs rise for everyone, all underlings, not just minimum wage earners. Are they going to broadcast this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice they just dismissed that point when Token Conservative brought it up. And no mention about what happens to those who lose their jobs due to the minimum wage increase and the effect rising prices has on them.

      Delete
  3. The discussion about how the min wage doesn't keep up with inflation was funny. As usual, no discussion of the cause of inflation, they just assume its as natural and inevitable as the sunrise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition to this, no mention that the problem is in fact TOO MUCH INFLATION, and not that the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. They are incorrectly identifying the problem and solution. If anything, this should just display how inflation destroys purchasing power and the living standards of a nation's citizens (and how is not the economic panacea/pre-requisite that the Central Bank cheerleaders would like us to believe).

      Delete
    2. or the fact that inflation created by the federal reserve means that there is less need to employ people or to invest in capital to make those people more productive, thus increasing their wages because you can just get rich off of being the first to get the handouts from the government banks. Maybe that's why wages have stagnated while inflation keeps on inflating.

      Delete
  4. It wasn't actually Melissa Harris-Perry... No way that liberal mouthpiece would have said anything against the dem party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I have posted many times, of course an MSNBC will start on the min wage costing jobs.

    The zeitgeist for raising the min. wage has to do with battling the Cheap Labor Lobby--the goal is to lose some jobs, so "those people" go live some place else and Forced Integration, the policy of the Cheap Labor Lobby, is thwarted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'd also have to lobby for getting rid of unemployment handouts so that the locals who lose their jobs actually go to compete with the immigrants for work, rather than just collecting their weekly paycheck while looking for equal or better work than they had gotten laid off from.

      Delete
  6. It's completely disconnected from reality. It's like watching children argue about how attractive people are: Sure, everybody can't be a 10, but nobody should be a 1. We should have a minimum attractiveness level, a sort of beauty floor. If we just raised that beauty floor to 3 instead of 1, we'd be raising so many people out of ugliness. Plus, look at how much more attractive really beautiful people are today. I mean a 10 twenty years ago would only be an 8 today. The really ugly people today haven't kept up with the really beautiful people. So we should just raise the minimum attractiveness scale so more people can be beautiful. Why would anybody be against less ugliness?

    ReplyDelete