LogFAQs > #885572985

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The argument is typically that when the minimum wage rises, the cost of milk and bread will rise too because reasons.

Or if you're not being deliberately manipulative in your choice of words, the argument is that when you raise minimum wage, companies have to pay their employees more, and thus will raise the prices of their goods and services rather than being forced to eat that new extra cost themselves.

And when people follow that by suggesting "That's why we need laws to prevent companies from raising their prices, force them eat the cost, fuck big business!", the argument usually points out that a) smaller businesses can't necessarily eat the excess costs and are driven out of business, thus eliminating jobs entirely and raising unemployment, and b) larger businesses will either seek loopholes to bypass legislation (basically screwing over the general public/taxpayers in some way), or will relocate entirely to less developed nations with more lax business laws that they can exploit (thus eliminating domestic jobs and raising unemployment).

You can agree with the logic or not, but it's often quite well thought out in terms of complexities and consequences regardless. And while you can certainly accuse some people of parroting back the "party line" without actually understanding how economics, business, law, or politics work, the same is generally true of both sides of this argument - and pretty much every other political argument besides, and especially so online where 99.44% of the people you see discussing any issue don't actually understand anything about it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family