I just don't see this fast food worker being worth $15/hr(non-Vegas)

There are too many variables to point to one factor leading to an increase or decrease in employment, especially in the short run.

This is a theory advanced by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman. The details fill a book. But the bottom line is you have a negative income tax, where some people get payments from the IRS if they fall below a certain income level.

He felt just giving poor people money was a better way to end poverty than filtering it through 50,000 different government programs burdened with layers and layers of bureaucracy. So the concept is that we're already spending enough money to lift most Americans out of poverty...but by the time the money has worked its way through federal, state and local government it's a fraction of what was intended for the poor. If that's the case, we're be better off just giving the poor money....without the middleman.

Given the expense and results of our 50 year war on poverty, I think it's worth a shot.

Increasing minimum wage is certain to minimize an increase in employment or cause a decrease in employment.

An article that attempts to show a direct correlation between increased minimum wages at the state level and job growth. Even within that link, they do not say increased minimum wages are a reason for job growth. "Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state." With real job growth at under 1%, our nation's economy is still in a pitiful condition..

The amount of the minimum wage increases are also important to this discussion. The 14 (not 13) states that have increased their minimum wages since January 1, 2014, did so at the following rates:

WA $0.13
OR $0.15
CA $1.00
CO $0.22
AZ $0.10
MT $0.10
MO $0.15
OH $0.10
FL $0.14
NY $0.75
VT $0.13
RI $0.25
CT $0.45
NJ $1.00

The majority of the increases are not significant. A $208 annual pre-tax income increase isn't going to lift anyone above the poverty level or make them less likely to qualify for government assistance. It also is not enough to impact business pricing formulas. Even the highest increases are significantly less than what Obama wants, and astronomically less than the $15/hour-boycott-McDonald's crowd wants.

Obama wants an almost 40% increase in the federal minimum wage. Even the CBO knows that would kill jobs. I think their estimates are low. Considering we have experienced 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, there hasn't been a true recovery. One more quarter of the same and we will officially be back in a recession. The last thing this nation needs is federal legislation that will eliminate even more jobs.

Correction: We have had 1 quarter of negative GDP (Q1 14 = -2.9%). The Q2 estimate won't be released until July 30...GDP is not expected to be negative. Also, 2 quarters of negative GDP is considered a recession, not 3 so in the event that Q2 was also negative, we will be in a recession. I don't think that's going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to see a nice rebound as we likely had some pent up demand from poor Q1 weather conditions.

Of course there are some global economic and geopolitical situations that have the potential to shock us into more negative growth in future quarters. I hope not. My take is that as long as the price of oil doesn't see a run up like the 2009 bubble we should avoid recession. Then again, merely 'avoiding recession' isn't like 'happy days are here again'.

Obama doesn't care about facts or statistics or if raising the minimum wage does or does not help or hurt employment. His actions, desires and policies are and have always been aimed in one simple direction for one simple reason: to take from the rich and give to the poor, lazy, unproductive, inner city thugs and slugs as payback for all the years of disproportionate living. He feels these losers are entitled to a better life on the backs of the successful white man, regardless of the consequences resulting from increased demotivation to contribute anything of any value whatsoever to society. And all Mr. O has succeeded in doing is creating higher out-of-wedlock births and fatter prison population numbers for "his" people.

Pretty much follows the success rate of everything else the most incapable, incompetent, inexperienced president in US history has compiled.

The experiment has been an unmitigated failure, and I for one am embarrassed for our nation for having had to endure this abomination.

obama and the democrats goal is to create a class of people who are completely dependent on govt handouts & therefore continue to vote for democrats.

However this will eventually bankrupt the country

Do tell. How does raising someone's income make them more dependent on the government? I would think it does the opposite.

I love the people who want to abolish minimum wage and then complain about government programs.

If you dont want government to pay for poor people to eat then you should probably demand the employers of those people do....especially the employers experiencing record profits and record executive income packages.

[For 150 years Indians have lived under a series of Liberal giveaway programs. If such giveaways helped, wouldn't these policies have raised this group up by now? Obama is expanding such giveaways to poor people, but especially to black poor people, assuring that 150 years from now we have a huge group of lazy, non-productive people who will never work.

q]Originally posted by: pjstroh

Who is talking about people who don't work? I'm talking about people who do. Food is not a discretionary item any more than air is.

People like Boilerman support poverty wages for full time jobs....only to complain about the resulting poverty those workers live in.