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