# The virtues of a $10/hour minimum wage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021 "2016-04-24T20:40:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/161 "2016-04-27T22:28:09Z")
If you acknowledge that raising the minimum wage to $10 or 15 overnight will cost jobs, why can't you acknowledge that the same job loss occurs when you raise the MW from 0 to $10 over 75 years, albeit with more time to adjust and thus less stress? If you snap a twig over your knee in a split second, or have a machine do it slowly over time, the twig still breaks. I’m not sure why you think these forces go away when more time is applied? It lessens the immediate stress, but in doing so just drags it out longer – lower stress per unit time, but the same stress beginning to end. The fact is, there are a continuum of jobs that are worth anything from zero dollars an hour to several million an hour for the person hiring. By instituting a minimum wage, you’re eliminating the bottom jobs from the pool, which tend to be the only ones low skilled workers can get. Doing it slowly means people working those jobs have time to find better ones (if they can, and as real MW goes up, that gets harder and harder for the unskilled), and employers can find mechanical or procedural replacements, but the jobs are still gone. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/162 "2016-04-28T01:14:15Z")
Here ([.pdf](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf)) are better data (USCB) on people living in poverty in 2014. 26.5MM age 18-64 lived in poverty. 16.4MM (62%) of them did not work. 7.1MM (27%) worked, but not full-time, year-round 3.1MM (12%) worked full-time, year-round _Why_ they didn’t work, or only part-time, is really neither here nor there. But USCB has those data if anyone is curious. But what we see here is that most people living in poverty either do not work or work only a little. But they’re poor, and many people think we should do something about that. That requires spending someone’s money on it. Now one proposal is to raise minimum wage, altering how money flows from business owners, regardless of income, and from their customers, regardless of income, to MW earners, regardless of income; recall that most MW earners are not living in poverty. If you’re going to use someone’s money to try to solve the problem, I would much prefer to use taxes from people who can afford them (I can afford them) and direct the funds toward the people who need them. How that manifests is a matter for discussion. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/163 "2016-04-28T01:24:27Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > If you acknowledge that raising the minimum wage to $10 or 15 overnight will cost jobs, why can't you acknowledge that the same job loss occurs when you raise the MW from 0 to $10 over 75 years, albeit with more time to adjust and thus less stress? For the same reason I can acknowledge that taking a bottle full of aspirin in one sitting is bad for you whereas doing it over he course of a year in modest doses can be beneficial. Honestly, does what you wrote make any sense to you? Further, you are completely misrepresenting the reality of the MW. There was never a time where we went from an _effective_ minimum wage of $0 to $10. People generally will not work for nothing, so the effective minimum wage is not going to be zero save internships and the like. So the change at any given point is going to be X vs. X+ some amount dictated by a minimum wage. So far, that change has not really had measurable deleterious societal effects AFAICT. And there is a data from other countries on this as well. Germany instituted a minimum wage last year going from, in your parlance, 0 to 8.5 euros/hour overnight. Most accounts I have seen indicate no evidence of job losses. See [here](https://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/09/the-german-minimum-wage-is-not-a-job-killer/), [here](http://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-jobs/news/germany-s-minimum-wage-effect-fewer-workers-receiving-unemployment-aid/), and [here](http://www.dw.com/en/german-minimum-wage-moderate-in-eu-comparison/a-19083317). > [@DrCube](#): > > The fact is, there are a continuum of jobs that are worth anything from zero dollars an hour to several million an hour for the person hiring. By instituting a minimum wage, you’re eliminating the bottom jobs from the pool, which tend to be the only ones low skilled workers can get. There is little evidence this is actually true. Let’s look at broad trends here. The value of minimum wage has fallen something like 30% since the 80’s, yet teen employment has also fallen during that time. Why? By pure, cold economic logic, employers should be hiring more people since it’s cheaper for them to do so. Why hasn’t that happened with teens? Why wouldn’t McDonald’s, for example, go on a hiring spree given they can in theory hire more people for the same cost? This speaks to your point that these bottom jobs evaporate due to a high wage floor. Obviously that may be the case under certain circumstances, but it doesn’t seem to pan out in the real world. There is little reason for me, as the owner of a McDonald’s in a world without MWs, to hire more cooks just because they are slightly cheaper. I especially am not just gonna hire dropouts, felons, and/or the incompetent just because they are a bargain on paper. I’d rather just pocket the money to use on something else. I, the owner, get richer, and society ends up having to subsidize me by providing my “underpaid” employees with [benefits](http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#565491af7cd8) because having millions of people who cannot provide for themselves has been deemed sub-optimal. But let’s assume that your contention is broadly true. Why should I care? Why should society be okay with the fact that I can hypothetically find enough people to exploit at poverty level wages absent a legislated MW? Why should I cosign this plan that is almost inevitably going to equate people to chattel whose desperation must be seized upon so that I can remain competitive? Also, why haven’t most countries come to the same enlightened conclusion you have? Just about every successful country has a minimum wage either via legislation or collective bargaining. If a free market system where individuals negotiate for the own pay is best for society, why hasn’t any country (AFAICT) realized this and implemented it for the good of their own citizens? Is everyone uninformed? > [@DrCube](#): > > Doing it slowly means people working those jobs have time to find better ones (if they can, and as real MW goes up, that gets harder and harder for the unskilled), and employers can find mechanical or procedural replacements, but the jobs are still gone. The jobs are evaporating for the unskilled regardless. That is what technology does. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/164 "2016-04-28T01:55:44Z")
I agree the “why not all at once?” baffles me. Predictability and the ability to plan are good for markets. > [@brickbacon](#): > > There is little evidence this is actually true. Let’s look at broad trends here. The value of minimum wage has fallen something like 30% since the 80’s, yet teen employment has also fallen during that time. Why? By pure, cold economic logic, employers should be hiring more people since it’s cheaper for them to do so. Why hasn’t that happened with teens? Why wouldn’t McDonald’s, for example, go on a hiring spree given they can in theory hire more people for the same cost? Most teens, and more each year, do not \*want \*to work. Discussion in this article: [http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/29/teen-employment-falling/](http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/29/teen-employment-falling/) It looks like each year there are fewer teens who want work but can’t find it. My guess is it has some part to do with increased focus on college. > [@brickbacon](#): > > I, the owner, get richer, and society ends up having to **subsidize me** by providing my “underpaid” employees with [benefits](http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#565491af7cd8) because having millions of people who cannot provide for themselves has been deemed sub-optimal. That is not a subsidy to the employer. The employer sees no difference if the employee is receiving government benefits or not. And the employee is likely not, given that most MW earners are not living in poverty. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/165 "2016-04-28T02:49:45Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > That is not a subsidy to the employer. The employer sees no difference if the employee is receiving government benefits or not. And the employee is likely not, given that most MW earners are not living in poverty. You don’t, strictly speaking, need to be in poverty to receive government transfers and services based on income. That said, my point was that if a “living wage” in a given area is $10/hour, and we have two realities where the MW wage is $8 and another where the MW is $10, low wage workers in the former reality will often take advantage of government handouts (often with their employer’s prompting) to survive. Our decision not to legislate a $10/hour minimum wage in the above scenario means we are basically subsidizing the employer because they get to keep that extra $2/hour. That’s why we can be reasonable sure that Walmart, et al., would have to raise their wages if SNAP and other government and/or private charitable services were not available to many of their employees. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/166 "2016-04-28T03:17:41Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > You don’t, strictly speaking, need to be in poverty to receive government transfers and services based on income. That said, my point was that if a “living wage” in a given area is $10/hour, and we have two realities where the MW wage is $8 and another where the MW is $10, low wage workers in the former reality will often take advantage of government handouts (often with their employer’s prompting) to survive. Our decision not to legislate a $10/hour minimum wage in the above scenario means we are basically subsidizing the employer because they get to keep that extra $2/hour. Not forcing someone to pay above the market rate is not a subsidy. You’re correct that poverty is not the cutoff. For example, SNAP cuts of at 130% of the poverty line. But I can bump myself below the poverty line or a benefits threshold by having enough kids. Well, I used to be able to. I could be employed. I could not be employed. If I am, having that 3rd kid and suddenly receiving benefits changes nothing for the employer. > [@brickbacon](#): > > That’s why we can be reasonable sure that Walmart, et al., would have to raise their wages if SNAP and other government and/or private charitable services were not available to many of their employees. What, people would stop working for them if they stopped receiving government and/or private charitable services? ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/167 "2016-04-28T03:31:49Z")
> [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > That’s pretty cruel. > > I’m in a skilled trade. I have 11 years in the trade. That’s 11 years of hard work and skills and knowledge that burger-flippers etc. don’t have. And one of the benefits of acquiring those skills is that you can make a half-decent living. Well, if the minimum wage gets raised to $15…I’ll be working for minimum wage. Do you think my employer is going to say, “Well, your skills are worth more than that, so we’re going to pay you $30 an hour now?” I doubt it. And then, when prices rise, I’ll be unable to keep up, or else I’ll be dis-employed because my employer can’t afford to keep me. So I will be driven to the bottom, even though I worked my ass off to get where I am now. > > It seems you think only white-collar professionals are “worth more than that.” There are a lot of people in the skilled trades that would disagree. Actually, you would make more, because why would you, with better skills, work at a harder job than a minimum wage job. This is the point that people miss. If low level workers make 15 bucks then higher level workers have to make more too. That is the benefit of union workers. I was an engineer back in the day and my benefits were based on what the unions could negotiate, because they couldn’t give engineers lesser benefits and we didn’t have a union. ---
**Author:** ![ziper1221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a183cd/32.png) [@ziper1221](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ziper1221)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/168 "2016-04-28T05:13:04Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > For the same reason I can acknowledge that taking a bottle full of aspirin in one sitting is bad for you whereas doing it over he course of a year in modest doses can be beneficial. Honestly, does what you wrote make any sense to you? This is a false comparison. A more apt one would be taking one aspirin the first week, two the second week, until you are taking 52 a day after a year. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/169 "2016-04-28T06:46:11Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > We already have an expensive safety net. Regardless your position is incoherent. The lower the safety net the more vital a job is. If a minimum wage makes someone who would otherwise be employed unemployed than it hurts them less in a generous welfare state. The U.S. safety net is one of the poorest among all developed countries. [Among 35 countries, the U.S. ranks next-to-worst in child poverty, ahead only slightly of Romania.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/) And Romania has much lower GDP per capita than U.S.; when that is factored in, Romania is doing much better than the U.S. ! So I really can’t imagine what your “expensive safety net” refers to — unless it’s just the usual “_My money is Mine! **Mine! Mine!** Every penny the gummint steals from me at gunpoint is **Armed Robbery!** _” So … many Americans suffer from severe poverty for various reasons. And you yourself have shown why expanding a safety net is politically unlikely as long as the “_ **My Money doesn’t belong with the gummint freeloaders!** _” mentality dominates. Therefore minimum wage hikes are left as one practical way to help lower-income Americans. Or don’t you agree that’s a worthy goal? Finally — the question of how many low-wage workers will lose their jobs with a MW hike _is_ an important one. But point to economists’ writings please if you want to debate that — let’s not just parrot [Forbes.com](http://Forbes.com) and Sean Hannity talking points … or worse, prattle about “it’s just Econ 101” while proving the writer has never taken Econ 101. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/170 "2016-04-28T10:29:31Z")
Despite all my complaints, I really don’t think a increase to $10 would be that big a deal, for good or bad. Just please peg the damn thing to inflation so we don’t have to talk about it any more. However, this does sound appealing to a small evil part inside of me that wants life to be an action movie: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > trigger ragnorok and throw us into a mad max style dystopian futurescape. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/171 "2016-04-28T10:41:43Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > You’re correct that poverty is not the cutoff. For example, SNAP cuts of at 130% of the poverty line. But I can bump myself below the poverty line or a benefits threshold by having enough kids. Well, I used to be able to. I could be employed. I could not be employed. If I am, having that 3rd kid and suddenly receiving benefits changes nothing for the employer. Oh I see now - you’re strictly defining poverty by the Federal poverty line. So, if you earn $1 over that line you’re suddenly middle class? Reality doesn’t work that way. If you make (as an example for SNAP) 130% of the Federal poverty line _you are still poor_ by any practical definition. You sure as hell aren’t middle class. Add in another kid and you are _even more poor_ unless you’re keeping the kid naked in a dog kennel and barely feeding it enough to keep it alive. Kids cost money, they don’t earn it. > [@](#): > > What, people would stop working for them if they stopped receiving government and/or private charitable services? They’d probably not eat as well, lose their homes, find it harder to keep themselves and their clothes clean enough to be acceptable, and eventually lose their jobs due to being unable to afford to maintain even minimum standards or afford reliable transportation to work. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/172 "2016-04-28T10:44:13Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Despite all my complaints, I really don’t think a increase to $10 would be that big a deal, for good or bad. Just please peg the damn thing to inflation so we don’t have to talk about it any more. If we had pegged MW to inflation _decades ago_ when the notion was first proposed we wouldn’t have to talk about it now. That said - I could live with $10 MW subsequently raised to keep pace with inflation. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/173 "2016-04-28T10:54:17Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If we had pegged MW to inflation _decades ago_ when the notion was first proposed we wouldn’t have to talk about it now. > > That said - I could live with $10 MW subsequently raised to keep pace with inflation. I meant if you’re going to raise it, peg it (after raising it) and leave it pegged. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/174 "2016-04-28T10:56:19Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Oh I see now - you’re strictly defining poverty by the Federal poverty line. So, if you earn $1 over that line you’re suddenly middle class? > > Reality doesn’t work that way. If you make (as an example for SNAP) 130% of the Federal poverty line _you are still poor_ by any practical definition. You sure as hell aren’t middle class. Add in another kid and you are _even more poor_ unless you’re keeping the kid naked in a dog kennel and barely feeding it enough to keep it alive. Kids cost money, they don’t earn it. > They’d probably not eat as well, lose their homes, find it harder to keep themselves and their clothes clean enough to be acceptable, and eventually lose their jobs due to being unable to afford to maintain even minimum standards or afford reliable transportation to work. What does any of this have to do with **brickbacon** ’s argument that a federal benefit to the employee is a subsidy to the employer? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/175 "2016-04-28T12:58:40Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Not forcing someone to pay above the market rate is not a subsidy. Call it what you will. As long as we are in rough agreement that employers benefit when their employers are able to collect social services that they would otherwise have to pay for with their wages. > [@Ruken](#): > > If I am, having that 3rd kid and suddenly receiving benefits changes nothing for the employer. It might if you decide you cannot support said third child on the wages you are receiving. > [@Ruken](#): > > What, people would stop working for them if they stopped receiving government and/or private charitable services? Many competent people would. Three things would tend to happen IMO: their employees would find ways to cut back or fill the hole (eg. sharing an apartment, stealing food), they would become worse employees because they would have to spent more time and effort taking care of themselves with less resources, or they would quit. In most circumstances, Walmart benefits by having that social safety net there to help their employees. > [@ziper1221](#): > > This is a false comparison. A more apt one would be taking one aspirin the first week, two the second week, until you are taking 52 a day after a year. No, the analogy is just fine. Yours make no sense. > [@Ruken](#): > > Despite all my complaints, I really don’t think a increase to $10 would be that big a deal, for good or bad. Just please peg the damn thing to inflation so we don’t have to talk about it any more. I generally agree. However, I do think $15/hour as some are arguing for is not really wise for a majority of the country. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/176 "2016-04-28T17:03:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Raising MW is to liberals what tax cuts are to Republicans - it’s free money with no downside. > Regards, > Shodan > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Ask Kansas if there is no downside to tax cuts. Their current financial crisis is a direct result of the supply side voodoo Republicans inflicted on that state. > [@Ruken](#): > > I think that was his point > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > My point was, while there is ample evidence for economic crisis following tax cuts, there is none for raising the minimum wage. I feel compelled to note that there is considerable distance between “no downside” and “economic crisis.” **Shodan** is nearly always fundamentally wrong in the political positions he espouses, but the people who are fundamentally right really need to be on their toes when demonstrating that, and not ascribe to him positions which he can readily and persuasively deny having put forward. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/177 "2016-04-28T19:20:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Call it what you will. As long as we are in rough agreement that employers benefit when their employers are able to collect social services that they would otherwise have to pay for with their wages. Is Social Security a subsidy to employers? (Hey, they don’t have to offer a retirement plan!) Is Single Payer healthcare a subsidy to employers? (Hey, they don’t have to pay for HCI!) Is publicly funded education a subsidy to employers? (Hey, the don’ have to pay for their employees’ education!) ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/178 "2016-04-28T22:56:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is Social Security a subsidy to employers? (Hey, they don’t have to offer a retirement plan!) Social security is partially paid for by employers, so your question makes no sense. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is Single Payer healthcare a subsidy to employers? (Hey, they don’t have to pay for HCI!) If the alternative is employers paying for their employees’ healthcare, then yes, it would be loosely speaking. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is publicly funded education a subsidy to employers? (Hey, the don’ have to pay for their employees’ education!) Honestly, did you really think this made any sense when you typed it? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/179 "2016-04-29T00:11:05Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Call it what you will. As long as we are in rough agreement that employers benefit when their employers are able to collect social services that they would otherwise have to pay for with their wages. I don’t think we are. When I hire someone, the wage is the same whether he or she is receiving government benefits or not. The good I am purchasing, labor, costs the same. If the government doubles the benefit, my “subsidy” gets doubled, but 2 x 0 = 0. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/180 "2016-04-29T00:32:30Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Social security is partially paid for by employers, so your question makes no sense. . Ah, you noticed that, did you. Did you notice that employees also pay taxes that “partially pay” for things like Food Stamps? Yes, the question “makes no sense” except to illustrate why your original assertion made no sense. > [@](#): > > Honestly, did you really think this made any sense when you typed it? Honestly, do you think that is any kind of serious rebuttal? Just so you know, it ain’t. Also, see above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021.md?page=10)