Bob Owens said:Bull. Are you saying that just because a job pays little that the work is unneccisary? If the work did not need to be done then a high minimum wage might cause those jobs to be eliminated but not too many of those jobs really exist, except perhaps in the government and the government usually pays more than the minimum wage of any state. Areas that have legislated minimum wages have lower unemployment rates than areas that dont.
In the private sector, all work is necessary. Jobs that will be eliminated at $10/hour are those that cannot support production of $10/hour. For example, if you're operating a restaurant and you are bringing in $8/hour per employee in revenue less non-labor expenses, you can't pay your employees $10/hour. Well, you can until your bank runs dry, and then you close your doors (lost jobs).
Areas that have legislated higher minimum wages like New York and California have a higher cost of living, so it's a wash.
The fact is there are more jobs and more people working in the US than when we were primarily a manufacturer. The change is part of the change that comes with the Information era. The LCC ruse has been around longer than any of the LCCs have been around.
I agree. So what is the deal with these industrial unions that claim relevance?
Something in between Wal-Mart's illegal aliens & mandatory off-the-clock work (a.k.a. slavery) and featherbedding work rules & monopoly power wages would be nice.
??
What I am saying is that there is a middle ground between those two extremes. I hate Wal-Mart and do not shop there. But the idea of holding on to yesterday's wages/work rules (as in the case of NW today) is just not going to work.