They’d much rather work for ten.
I express my compassion by supporting a minimum wage hike so they don’t have to work for nothing.
Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation nor has it kept pace with corporate profits. It’s time to carve a slice out of the rich piggies, man.
Then why stop at $10?
Economics is not an exact science where you can hold one varible constant to find out how it and it alone affects a parameter like employment. Saying that no MW increase has resulted in lost jobs is a meaningless statement since there is no good way to check it empirically.
But we certainly know that raising the MW to $50 would destroy jobs. And it is unreasonable to assume that the function describing the loss of jobs vs the raise in the MW has an inflection point-- ie, that you can raise the MW from X to Y with no effect, but if you raise it above Y it suddenly takes off.
If it does in fact have an inflection point, tell us what “Y” is.
Why is that unreasonable?
Let’s assume that we set the minimum wage at $0.02 a day. Are there really companies that won’t hire people, because they’re only willing to pay $0.01 a day?
I doubt it. And if there aren’t, but if there are companies that would cut down on hirings were the minimum wage to go up to $50 an hour, then there’s an inflection point.
The only questions are:
Daniel
Well, regardless of what is going on in this thread currently I’m going to post the last of my thoughts on the last of the debates and move along leaving ya’ll to your various partisan screeds 
I thought Bush started well. He wasn’t dominating, but he was holding his own better than he had in the prior debates. The turning point came when Kerry defended his record on tax voting. Bush brought up the 98 tax increase votes and Kerry replied that he had voted to lower taxes 600 times (not sure if that was the number but I don’t have a transcript handy). After that Bush fell back into Kerry as a liberal, which I’m sure surprised a great number of people who thought that Kerry was a die hard anarchist.
It went downhill for Bush from there. He got pinned on his statement about not caring about Osama. His answer to the gun control question (congress wouldn’t move it) may have been true but was certainly weak and made Kerrys reply (if congress tried to stall it there’d be a fight) look much better by comparison. The gay marriage question didn’t help Bush as all he could do was appeal to the right wingers with the amendment. The low point came on the question about the divided populace. Kerry threw McCains name around a lot, but Bush came off looking worse with his podium pounding “Yeah well McCain is still voting for me!” tantrum.
Meanwhile, Kerry did a better job of getting details of his famous plans out to the public, which was something he really needed to do. Other than that, all Kerry had to do was wait for Bush to make a mistake and pounce which he did well since he had a fair amount of practice in the previous meetings.
Still, Kerry didn’t win the debate so much as Bush lost the debate. I think Kerry needed a clear and dominating win to lock this thing up, but I think the polls will begin to move in his direction as the undecideds begin to make up their friggin minds.
Now all that is left to do is pray to og that, however the election goes, we don’t have to put up with any more recount/election fraud/voter intimidation/supreme court nonsense so that we can put at least the 2000 mess behind us. 
Is McDonalds going to suddenly stop needing hamburger flippers if minimum wage goes up? are car washes going to shut down?
The need for manpower is going to stay the same in the minimum wage sector. The job loss thing boogeyman is really just a straw man.
You really have to learn some economics if you’re going to have an informed political opinion. Do you really want to help the working poor or just implement facile solutions that don’t work but make you seem like a compassionate person to other ignorant people? The majority of minimum wage employers are small business owners. A 50 cent rise in the minimum wage will cost a small employer of 10 MWW an extra $10,000 a year. This is essentially a huge tax on the sector that is responsible for creating the most new jobs in the first place. You want to help the working poor? Give them an earned income tax credit. This will allow relief to go to the people who really need it and will be shared by everyone equally. Instead of teenages looking to buy a cooler skateboard, the money can actually go to the people who NEED the money.
Being intelligent and compassionate need not be mutually exclusive though it often seems that way on this board.
I’m no economist so I don’t have much to offer in regards to the minimum wage thing. But from my perspective as a former minimum wage drone, a raise in the minimum wage will just make some employers cut hours. Doesn’t matter how many people are really needed to man a store, or to do the job properly—they’ll cut hours anyway. The last thing they’ll do is just go belly up and say, “Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to pay everyone more, then!” with no other adjustments or changes.
They’ll do what they have to do, legally, but there will be negative repercussions (usually in layoffs or cut hours).
Doesn’t make it right, but that’s what will happen. Seen it happen, heard about it happening all the time.
KC:
I don’t disupte your logic about the fact that Minimum Wage increases will hurt Small businesses, but my serious question is this… Would the positive affect of an increase in minimum wage offset most of the negative?
I’ll think of it in a very basic model here. What if there were 10 employers with 10 employees each. Assume that the minimum wage is doubled, so they have to fire half their workers. That would be bad, obviously, and would lead to unemployment. But then the other half would have double the money. correct?
So what happens next? I see there being the need for 10 workers in each firm because they consume twice as much, but its hard for the stores to hire more workers because they can’t afford it. So what happens in this situation?
Of course, “small business” is defined so broadly that it includes GWB.
Not in my experience. IME, minimum-wage bosses will cut your hours to the bone no matter what the minimum wage is. They’re not being generous by giving you the hours they are; they’re giving you the bare number of hours they can give you and still keep the establishment open.
So, if the minimum wage is raised, what will they do?
Remember: employers have a vested interest in minimizing labor costs. Those employers who are paying folks minimum wage are showing that they’re already doing everything they can to minimize labor costs. Raising labor costs isn’t going to somehow give them some new variable through which they can minimize labor costs, e.g., cutting hours; if they coulda reduced that variable, they already woulda done so.
Sure, they might shut down. That’s a real danger you can run into when you raise minimum wage. But that’s gotta be weighed against the increased spending power of folks who are getting more money, and about the business opportunities opened up by this increased cash flow.
Daniel
Actually, there would be. I think you are confusing hiring one additional worker with hiring a proportionate number of people relative to the wage hike. Let’s look at a large company with 10,000 MW employees. They are making pretty good money, but can’t hire more people without going in the red. If the MW is dropped from .02 to .01, they might not hire 2,000 additional employees, but they might hire 1000 more, or even 5000 more, if more employees means more product out the door without additional costs. For this to be false, you’d have to assume that at $.02/hr there were no barriers to hiring more people and that the company would grow without bounds.
Arghhh, I editted incorectly. That was supposed to be “they might not hire10,000 additional employees”…
You’re dead on. That is exactly what happens. Also, job loss is often obscured by a growing economy.
Is McDonald’s going to stop needing burger flippers? No one has answered that.
Capitalist swine. 
Or I’d have to assume that there are costs associated with additional employees beyond just labor costs: parking, uniforms, workspace, etc.
It seems highly unlikely to me that a single penny a day would be a significant additional expenditure for an extra employee, compared to these other nonwage costs.
Daniel
You’re right in that employers have other options besides firing employees if the MW is raised. And the most obvious choice is to raise prices, since their competition has the same increase in labor cost, they will be likely to do the same thing. Then you’ve just added a hidden tax on consumers. Additionally, there is an increased barrier for the employer to hire his next employee. He’ll need to increase profiits more than he would have otherwise before he brings on the next worker. AND, as we compete in a more global economy, employers are more likely to look favorably at openning additional factories or service centers in lower wage countries.
If you could legislate wealth, we’d have done it long ago. The governmnet simply can’t create wealth by passing a law.
But you WOULD consider that a $1/hr raise would, right? Then just raise the MW by a penny a day for 100 days to get around it.
Ever hear of Stockholders? Competition? Importing? $5 hambugers? …No?
Expect a round table discussion about how all of these things are affected by increasing the MW dramatically, or even arguably, at all.
The need for manpower will not stay the same. Manpower is relatively cheap right now, at this level. Bump it up and those jobs are gone. I’d rather make one guy do twice the work and stay a little late at $10/hour than have two guys strokin it for the same rate. Expect costumer service to decline, alot.
How many people do you know that career in a MW job? None? It’s primarily a stepping stone to a better job, a launch pad for an education.
China will own the US, if they don’t already.
I don’t follow you. Do you acknowledge that there’s an inflection point somewhere greater than two cents a day?
Daniel
No, I was trying to point that if you assume there IS an inflection point, that I can provide a way to get around that inflection point by approaching it incrimentally. And if that’s true, then there can’t actually be an inflection point in the first place.