A period of fulltime low wage work correlates with reduced earnings for life, on average.
Source? Do you presume that all people, regardless of aptitude, should be saddled with college debt before entering the workforce, forcing them to take whatever they can get. That's pretty bad for moral and productivity.
Some researchers think that work-life balance, like "flexible hours, time off when needed, and a locked-in schedule of shifts that allows workers to plan a full month, rather than a few days, in advance", is more important than wages. And if you don't presume everyone should have a college degree, how else do you imagine they don't start their work life at the bottom?
Meaningful post of known facts you requested, no authority necessary. Do I need to use smaller words for you?
Sure, if by "known" you mean completely out of your hat. You need to support your arguments, instead of parroting unsourced leftist talking points. If all you want to do is parrot, I can read that elsewhere, and have no need of conversing with you.
Yep. Many have to (the new minimum wage is higher than they pay), and many choose or are forced into maintaining a pay differential to avoid loss of skilled employees into lower pressure jobs and attract new hires for more difficult or more onerous jobs than the minimum wage ones.
And the evidence is in on mandated minimum wage hikes. They cut hours, benefits, and/or number of positions, or simply go out of business altogether. Claiming they maintain a differential only further exacerbates their need to pass the extra expenses on to their customers. The opposite of your claim that they can raise wages while not raising prices. You should try to avoid transparently conflicting arguments.
Commonly observed and theoretically coerced response. See your Econ 101 textbook, or your history book. Normally the business then finds ways to improve productivity or quality, to restore earnings and profits.
Businesses to do those in response to natural competition, where their improved productivity or quality can give them a competitive advantage. But the added expense of a minimum wage hike hits all competitors equally, giving no one an advantage (unless they cut hours, benefits, and/or jobs better than others). Maybe you should reread your textbooks.
Almost all low paid workers spend what they earn, to meet their cost of living. That's where the net increase in purchasing power comes from. In the US they are often forced into debt - spending more than they earn.
The prices rise much more slowly than the low end wages if the market is competitive, because the wages are only a percentage of the prices (often a small percentage, in minimum wage jobs). Again, see your Econ 101 textbook.
Then maybe there should be a crackdown on predatory lending.
Again, competition doesn't abate an added burden on all businesses without them cutting hours, benefits, and/or jobs.
Prices were lower after correction for inflation. Low end wages, especially the minimum wages, were higher after correction for inflation. Simultaneously. That's partly because executive remuneration and return to capital were much lower, and taxation was sliding scale - "progressive".
Um, taxation is still progressive.
Higher minimum wages cause higher rates of skill acquisition - including more and better ojt, more access to more sophisticated machinery, and so forth. The cut hours help increase productivity. The cut positions are only of jobs that cannot pay the necessary wages for maintaining decent human life - good riddance.
Lots of fantasy there.
