Why is it that no one on the left will ever understand that if a business must pay more to make a product, they will raise prices or cut costs. To cut costs, you get rid of people or hours (hence killing the effect of raising pay). And most business (initially) will cut costs instead of raising prices so they dont' damage their market share. Later businesses will begin to increase prices after the cuts to costs have been finished (economics 101) and then the people making the new 'living wage' will be just as poor as they were before government intervention into supply and demand.
New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona
Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers
Chad GrahamOh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM
That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.
Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. (link)
Of course this is only in Arizona, but if a nation-wide bill passes, this will be the result nationwide. Yes the minimum wage is a very poor wage to make and will not support a family. Lost in this statement is the fact that most people making the minimum wage did NOT support a family and also that most (probably 99%) business that pay the minimum also offer raises after a certain amount of work time (or improvement). So the 'workers at minimum havn't had a raise in 10 years' meme is shot also. If someone had been working for that rate for 10 years, they seriously need to look into that business and their pay practices. Also the person needs to be looking into other employment.
Reason to think