Daily Show hitpiece on minimum wage laws - Peter Schiff responds

[kusok]

How weird. Jon Stewart makes 25 million a year...and he pays some of his workers nothing?

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...art-net-worth/

AND then goes on to bash Peter Schiff for being against minimum wage.


AND after taking out of context a slip by Peter after a 4 hour interview.


AND editing out the first part of response by Peter.



Stewart is a commie. Super popular in Europe communist countries. I know people from Norway and Sweden who take his word as truth. They post his clips all the time.

[Stizzel]

AND then goes on to bash Peter Schiff for being against minimum wage.


AND after taking out of context a slip by Peter after a 4 hour interview.


AND editing out the first part of response by Peter.



Stewart is a commie. Super popular in Europe communist countries. I know people from Norway and Sweden who take his word as truth. They post his clips all the time.

lol norway

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1fnx57/

TIL Norway has no minimum wage, however Mcdonald's workers make between 95 - 140+ kroner ($16-24USD) per hour depending on their age.

[MediaDeit]

They featured Peter, took a few of his comments out of context which is to be expected. I mean 'legitimate' liberal media does this all the time. Anyway he got bombarded with hate mail so he wrote this up as a response. If you click the link you can watch the clip from the daily show. Seems there's lots of minimum wage discussion going on, so here you go.

http://www.schiffradio.com/b/The-Dai...630098994.html



Again I don't know why he's pointing out that they're not interested in an actual debate. This is a left wing comedy show. But then aren't they all?

He is a complete idiot, he looked like a complete idiot..... he volunteered to be on this show, to do this segment which was idiotic with his viewpoint and he then couldn't even keep his comments civil so they couldn't be perpetrated into jokes. He really is a ****ing idiot.

[Stizzel]

He is a complete idiot, he looked like a complete idiot..... he volunteered to be on this show, to do this segment which was idiotic with his viewpoint and he then couldn't even keep his comments civil so they couldn't be perpetrated into jokes. He really is a ****ing idiot.

Actually he did a live interview on the daily show in 2009 and it went very well. I think you're just rustled because you identify with the left. The daily show went full potato here.

[woofermazing]

The disabled are exempt from minimum wage law. Working for Goodwill, many disabled Americans actually do make $2-4 an hour. That's not even for the "intellectually disabled", there are documented cases of the severely mentally handicapped making 22 cents an hour. If you are outraged at what he said, maybe you should be outraged that it's actually happening?

[Stizzel]

Some supporting data from the CATO institute

[Final_Rep]

Some supporting data from the CATO institute

Couldn't one interpret this graph as "2-3% less people can find jobs in countries with minimum wage, but those who can are much happier because they actually have buying power" ?

And which one would you rather have?

Just a thought.

[FawkinJuicy]

I do not rhink I can debate you anymore. Please look up inflation. Though the Fed can have an impact they did not create it or solely control it. It is an economic phenomenon where over time products and services naturally increase in cost. Inflation has existed since there has been currency.

While tk217's post was completely incorrect, your response was also. Inflation is 100% completely controlled by the Federal Reserve, because Congress has unconstitutionally abdicated it's responsibility to coin money to the Fed. The Fed controls the money supply. Inflation is plain and simple an expansion of the money supply. Rising prices are sometimes the consequence of money supply inflation, but not inflation itself. The government and central bankers have tried to disconnect themselves from the source of the problem. It is much easier to scapegoat "boogeyman speculators" and "greedy businessman" for rising prices, rather than blaming the true culprits: the govt (for deficit spending), and the central bank (for monetizing the debt).

As per the OP, Schiff did a good job rebutting this hit-piece on his radio show today, and Stefan Molyneux did a good job of rebutting while guest hosting the show on Friday. Peter is trying to get the full 4 hours of raw unedited footage released so he can put it on the Youtube. There is no way the Daily Show has enough integrity to do that.

[FawkinJuicy]

Couldn't one interpret this graph as "2-3% less people can find jobs in countries with minimum wage, but those who can are much happier because they actually have buying power" ?

And which one would you rather have?

Just a thought.

Yes, I'm sure the people who advocated for raising the minimum wage will be happy for voting to steal themselves more goodies. Those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs (very few) will now be artificially overpaid relative to their real labor productivity, while a bunch of other poor saps will get a pink slip. In addition to this, unskilled workers, and youth (especially minority youth) will have all kinds of potential entry level job opportunities destroyed. The nation as a whole will be poorer.

Fun fact for everybody: Did you know the first advocates of the minimum wage were white skilled worker trade unions who supported it because they didn't want to be underbid on projects and lose jobs to unskilled negro labor? So basically, racism was the main reason for individuals supporting the first minimum wage.

[FawkinJuicy]

You have short term memory problems? You asserted that raising the minimum wage would cause a rise in unemployment. I'm waiting for you to prove that claim.

I've already explained how three workers making 10.10/hour are worth more than the profit the company earns from their labor. That was how I determined their value.

I'm not even sure why I bother debating in these minimum wage threads anymore, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Increasing the minimum wage will cause an increase in unemployment. It is simple supply & demand economics. If you increase the price of something (labor in this case), people (employers in this case) will demand less for it. This is an economic law. If you think otherwise, then you believe that supply & demand does not apply to the price of labor - which is nonsense. It is analagous to thinking that Congress could pass a law exempting white people from gravity, and then only white people could fly. It doesn't work that way.

I didn't read through your guys' whole debate, but there are a lot more costs to an employer than simply the wages that he pays them. There are payroll taxes / FICA taxes / Medicare taxes / etc... on top of that. Rules and regulations like OSHA, and the threat of anti-discriminatory lawsuits for not hiring somebody also drive up the cost of labor. You can't just say $10.10 is the only cost for the employee because it is not accurate. Becoming an employer in America is one of the worst things you can do in America nowadays thanks to govt taxes, rules, and regulations. It is amazing to me that any jobs get created here anymore.

[Stizzel]

Couldn't one interpret this graph as "2-3% less people can find jobs in countries with minimum wage, but those who can are much happier because they actually have buying power" ?

And which one would you rather have?

Just a thought.

It's 12% vs 8% which is a 50% increase, and artificially increasing labor costs does not lead to increased buying power.

[Final_Rep]

Yes, I'm sure the people who advocated for raising the minimum wage will be happy for voting to steal themselves more goodies. Those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs (very few) will now be artificially overpaid relative to their real labor productivity, while a bunch of other poor saps will get a pink slip.

The chart above doesn't really support your assertions here IMHO.

It's 12% vs 8% which is a 50% increase, and artificially increasing labor costs does not lead to increased buying power.

0.08 is a 100% increase over 0.04 but the real figure is still a relatively small 8%. So, guess I see no reason to twist the numbers around. They say what you want them to say in a lot of ways.

I recently went to New Zealand and while I was there I met a lot of Australians. We actually talked about minimum wage there and in Australia and I was surprised to hear what they had to say about it.

I remember hearing something about their minimum wage being almost twice ours, plus workers get minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation and they also get benefits. Then they said something about who would you want to have making your Big Mac for you, the person barely scraping buy on less than $8 an hour or the person who is at least able to exercise some financial freedom, has health benefits, etc.

That really hit home for me. My natural response was that everything must be more expensive and unemployment must be much higher in Australia, in that demographic specifically, than it is here in the US. But all of my research says that's not quite true. It might be slightly higher but from what I found it wasn't significantly higher.

So at the end of the day I went from someone who advocated market forces in deciding wages to someone who thinks we might as well give it a try and see what happens. Looking at industry impact, macroeconomics, etc, I just don't see it as a slam dunk "destroyer" of our economy to such an extent that giving it a try would be such a bad thing, especially when it could be reversed in relatively short order.

Just some food for thought I guess.

[PSToolman]

I'm not even sure why I bother debating in these minimum wage threads anymore, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Increasing the minimum wage will cause an increase in unemployment. It is simple supply & demand economics. If you increase the price of something (labor in this case), people (employers in this case) will demand less for it. This is an economic law. If you think otherwise, then you believe that supply & demand does not apply to the price of labor - which is nonsense. It is analagous to thinking that Congress could pass a law exempting white people from gravity, and then only white people could fly. It doesn't work that way.

I didn't read through your guys' whole debate, but there are a lot more costs to an employer than simply the wages that he pays them. There are payroll taxes / FICA taxes / Medicare taxes / etc... on top of that. Rules and regulations like OSHA, and the threat of anti-discriminatory lawsuits for not hiring somebody also drive up the cost of labor. You can't just say $10.10 is the only cost for the employee because it is not accurate. Becoming an employer in America is one of the worst things you can do in America nowadays thanks to govt taxes, rules, and regulations. It is amazing to me that any jobs get created here anymore.

I notice you didn't post anything to prove your assertion that basic laws of supply and demand dictate that if you raise the minimum wage it will raise unemployment. I also know that the reason you didn't post anything because I've done my research and know there is nothing to prove your assertion. There has not been a spike in unemployment every time we have raised the minimum wage. My reality trumps your 11th grade theory.

Those other costs you speak of, like the cost of ensuring that American citizens are working in a safe environment, aren't affected because someone got a raise.

[Final_Rep]

It is simple supply & demand economics. If you increase the price of something (labor in this case), people (employers in this case) will demand less for it. This is an economic law. If you think otherwise, then you believe that supply & demand does not apply to the price of labor - which is nonsense.

If I know it takes three people to run my shop, and I have to raise minimum wage a couple bucks, it's still going to take three people to run my shop. So even though the supply is more expensive the demand has stayed the same.

I don't know how extensively this applies to the jobs in question (min. wage jobs) but I suspect, as a general rule of thumb, employers already try to hire only the minimum number of workers they need in order to deliver the products or services they want to deliver.

In other words your "economic law" doesn't apply here, at least in some situations (and potentially in many).

[Durendal]

I do not rhink I can debate you anymore. Please look up inflation. Though the Fed can have an impact they did not create it or solely control it. It is an economic phenomenon where over time products and services naturally increase in cost. Inflation has existed since there has been currency.

Haven't read the last two pages so I apologize if this has already been stated. What sort of economic phenomenon is inflation? Take a look at the below research and findings. Inflation was fairly stagnant from the inception of the US until 1913, with spikes during times of war.

Something different happened in 1913, and another something different in 1970. Inflation may be regarded as simply an unavoidable economic phenomenon and a fact of life, but history shows this not to be true.

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/f...r/sumprice.pdf

[Stizzel]

If I know it takes three people to run my shop, and I have to raise minimum wage a couple bucks, it's still going to take three people to run my shop. So even though the supply is more expensive the demand has stayed the same.

I don't know how extensively this applies to the jobs in question (min. wage jobs) but I suspect, as a general rule of thumb, employers already try to hire only the minimum number of workers they need in order to deliver the products or services they want to deliver.

In other words your "economic law" doesn't apply here, at least in some situations (and potentially in many).

If you require those three workers and minimum wage laws make their labor more expensive than the profit you derive from their labor, you'll either raise your prices or go out of business. Maybe both.

Edit: Or you might go to hiring illegal immigrants

[Stizzel]

The chart above doesn't really support your assertions here IMHO.

0.08 is a 100% increase over 0.04 but the real figure is still a relatively small 8%. So, guess I see no reason to twist the numbers around. They say what you want them to say in a lot of ways.

I recently went to New Zealand and while I was there I met a lot of Australians. We actually talked about minimum wage there and in Australia and I was surprised to hear what they had to say about it.

I remember hearing something about their minimum wage being almost twice ours, plus workers get minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation and they also get benefits. Then they said something about who would you want to have making your Big Mac for you, the person barely scraping buy on less than $8 an hour or the person who is at least able to exercise some financial freedom, has health benefits, etc.

That really hit home for me. My natural response was that everything must be more expensive and unemployment must be much higher in Australia, in that demographic specifically, than it is here in the US. But all of my research says that's not quite true. It might be slightly higher but from what I found it wasn't significantly higher.

So at the end of the day I went from someone who advocated market forces in deciding wages to someone who thinks we might as well give it a try and see what happens. Looking at industry impact, macroeconomics, etc, I just don't see it as a slam dunk "destroyer" of our economy to such an extent that giving it a try would be such a bad thing, especially when it could be reversed in relatively short order.

Just some food for thought I guess.

It's interesting that you don't think a 100% increase is a significant change.

If you want someone with economic freedom to prepare your food, you can go to anywhere from mcdonalds to ruths chris.

[tk217]

While tk217's post was completely incorrect

How is my post completely incorrect?

[NeoKantian]

I remember in 09 Schiff was predicting Zimbabwe inflation and how people should kill their kids to spare them their suffering.

[tk217]

I remember in 09 Schiff was predicting Zimbabwe inflation and how people should kill their kids to spare them their suffering.

He literally said - kill their kids? And was not being hyperbolic?

[NeoKantian]

He literally said - kill their kids? And was not being hyperbolic?

It's gonna be faking Weimar Republic.

[FawkinJuicy]

Inflation is pretty much a "Fed" concept. If you raise interest rates you will probably decrease unemployment but cause inflation - if you lower interest rates you will increase unemployment but prevent inflation.

I expect this new Fed reserve person to start increasing interest rates.

How is my post completely incorrect?

In general, raising interest rates is considered a tighter monetary policy and should be less inflationary, not more inflationary. Artificially low interest rates cause credit and money supply expansion, which is inflation. Raising interest rates right now would cause massive unemployment as the government would go broke, and the stock market and housing prices would crash. We would be in a worse recession than 2008. This is why the Fed always goes out of their way to say that by tapering QE, they are not tightening, and that interest rates will be 0% and easy in general for a long time (they can't say forever as the dollar would get crushed). Don't get me wrong, rates need to go higher, and a recession needs to happen. The U.S. economy is structurally a complete mess. We have no savings and don't produce anything, and rely solely on the ability to print the reserve currency and borrow and spend money. So while raising interest rates in the short term would cause a lot of unemployment, it would the best thing to happen to the economy for the long term.

Janet Yellen will be even more easy in terms of credit than Bernanke. She is exactly the same, but even more of a believer in the idiotic idea that money printing creates jobs. She will not raise interest rates any time soon. 0% interest rates are here to stay forever (until a crisis). Raising them would simply bankrupt the government.

If I know it takes three people to run my shop, and I have to raise minimum wage a couple bucks, it's still going to take three people to run my shop. So even though the supply is more expensive the demand has stayed the same.

I don't know how extensively this applies to the jobs in question (min. wage jobs) but I suspect, as a general rule of thumb, employers already try to hire only the minimum number of workers they need in order to deliver the products or services they want to deliver.

In other words your "economic law" doesn't apply here, at least in some situations (and potentially in many).

Stizzel beat me to the response. You might still require 3 people to run your shop, but if your labor costs go up and sales don't increase you're going to have to cut costs somewhere by either firing somebody, replacing human labor w/ cheaper automation, or raise your prices.

[tk217]

In general, raising interest rates is considered a tighter monetary policy and should be less inflationary, not more inflationary. Artificially low interest rates cause credit and money supply expansion, which is inflation. Raising interest rates right now would cause massive unemployment as the government would go broke, and the stock market and housing prices would crash. We would be in a worse recession than 2008.

That is your opinion not a fact.

I disagree. In the US case currently when the fed raises interest rates it causes inflation to occur because you are suddenly "creating" wealth out of thin air through "saving and interest" rather than capital deployment. And in this case where we have massively "locked" cash reserves (meaning the banks can't spend the money they have been given through the Fed's allocation of resources so it does not appear like they're printing money) we're in an up-side down world. So, no matter how low the interest rate is --- no one is deploying capital because no one is borrowing because no one can borrow. If we weren't doing QE and weren't hoarding reserves I'd agree. But, not in the US's case this time around.

Why are so many people buying T-Bills when they should all be in stock? Why are stock prices going down so rapidly right now?

There is a massive misconception about where the Bernanke Fed’s stimulus landed. Although the Bernanke Fed has disbursed $2.284 trillion in new money (the monetary base) since August 1, 2008, one month before the 2008 financial crisis, 81.5 percent now sits idle as excess reserves in private banks. The banks are not required to hold excess reserves. The excess reserves exploded from $831 billion in August 2008 to $1.863 trillion on June 14, 2013. The excess reserves of the nation’s private banks had previously stayed at nearly zero since 1959 as seen on the St. Louis Fed’s chart. The banks did not leave money idle in excess reserves at zero interest because they were investing in income earning assets, including loans to consumers and businesses.

This 81.5 percent explosion in idle excess reserves means that the Bernanke Fed’s new money issues of $85 billion each month have never been a big stimulus. Approximately 81.5 percent (or $69.27 billion) is either bought by banks or deposited into banks where it sits idle as excess reserves. The rest of the $85 billion, approximately 18.5 percent (or $15.72 billion) continues to circulate or is held as required reserves on banks’ deposit accounts (unlike unrequired excess reserves).

--Robert D. Auerbach

[Stizzel]

I remember in 09 Schiff was predicting Zimbabwe inflation and how people should kill their kids to spare them their suffering.

I like how you take apart his reasoning instead of denying his conclusion because you don't like it

[Final_Rep]

If you require those three workers and minimum wage laws make their labor more expensive than the profit you derive from their labor, you'll either raise your prices or go out of business. Maybe both.

Edit: Or you might go to hiring illegal immigrants

Yes, these are possible outcomes. But, as is the case with my own position of uncertainty, debating possibles doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. You seem to be implying that you know, as fact, that the overall effect of the change to higher minimum wage would be negative. But you aren't presenting any empirical data that supports it.

On the converse, neither am I. But then I'm not claiming to know, I'm just saying we should try it.

It's interesting that you don't think a 100% increase is a significant change.

How ridiculous do you want to take it? If one person in the country is unemployed and suddenly 2 more lose their jobs then that's a 200% increase ... but at the same time you still only have 3 people unemployed, which, obviously, would be a great position to be in. My only point is that the numbers can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.

Stizzel beat me to the response. You might still require 3 people to run your shop, but if your labor costs go up and sales don't increase you're going to have to cut costs somewhere by either firing somebody, replacing human labor w/ cheaper automation, or raise your prices.

Isn't replacing labor with cheaper automation just market forces at play, the same forces which you would support instead of paying people minimum wage to do a job when a machine can do it cheaper?

At the end of the day there would be negative effects, without a doubt. But you seem to be intentionally downplaying or even completely refusing to acknowledge that there are positive effects of people making more money, having vacation and benefits, etc.

I have no idea what the balance is, whether raising it to $10 is right, or $12 or $15, or simply leaving it as is, or even eliminating it altogether.

But I do know that you are advocating basically doing nothing and that amounts to stagnation, lack of innovation and change, and is rarely the answer to anything.

[Spoolme]

What i like about the daily show is that it only tells the truth. Unlike the right wing media, it has no agenda.

It's no wonder that Jon Stewart has more views than any show on fox news.

REALITY FTW!!

[NateTheGood]

What i like about the daily show is that it only tells the truth. Unlike the right wing media, it has no agenda.

It's no wonder that Jon Stewart has more views than any show on fox news.

REALITY FTW!!

Please tell me you forget the /sarcasm tag?

Nobody can be this stupid.

[PhysixBrah]

Yes, these are possible outcomes. But, as is the case with my own position of uncertainty, debating possibles doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. You seem to be implying that you know, as fact, that the overall effect of the change to higher minimum wage would be negative. But you aren't presenting any empirical data that supports it.

On the converse, neither am I. But then I'm not claiming to know, I'm just saying we should try it.

How ridiculous do you want to take it? If one person in the country is unemployed and suddenly 2 more lose their jobs then that's a 200% increase ... but at the same time you still only have 3 people unemployed, which, obviously, would be a great position to be in. My only point is that the numbers can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.

Isn't replacing labor with cheaper automation just market forces at play, the same forces which you would support instead of paying people minimum wage to do a job when a machine can do it cheaper?

At the end of the day there would be negative effects, without a doubt. But you seem to be intentionally downplaying or even completely refusing to acknowledge that there are positive effects of people making more money, having vacation and benefits, etc.

I have no idea what the balance is, whether raising it to $10 is right, or $12 or $15, or simply leaving it as is, or even eliminating it altogether.

But I do know that you are advocating basically doing nothing and that amounts to stagnation, lack of innovation and change, and is rarely the answer to anything.

Perhaps I can shed some light on this topic. I spent some time working with the Grattam Instititute) in Melbourne throughout most of 2012 and 2013 to derive econometric models on the relationship on the impact between minimum wages and factors such as employment, overall wages, aggregate demand, etc. It was extremely challenging, and although I left the institute, they are constantly working on the models. The problem is that there are so many factors. One of the things we found was that when minimum wage increases were made, this immediately created an increase in aggregate demand in the economy, obviously due to the increased purchasing power of the employees. This increase in demand seemed to largely offset the decrease in demand associated with the price rises coming from the wage increase.

There were, however, many other changes that occured. For one, the savings rate and total investment actually lowered. I suspect this is due to an inefficient change in resource allocation, where money, that would normally be saved by the employer for investment in the business or in other areas, would be handed to the employee. Worker productivity growth also seemed to take a bit of a dive, but we're still gathering more data on that. Take this all with a grain of salt though - although we've had many statisticians and phD's working on it, it is yet to be published and properly peer reviewed. My personal suspicion, and it's just my thinking based on the data and work I've seen, is that a rise in the minimum wage does boost the economy, much like government spending, but takes away to a certain degree from future gains in productivity and investment.

Another change we noticed was in entrepreneurial starts. Big companies and corporations tend to actually benefit from a higher minimum wage, as they have far lowered fixed costs than small companies (economies of scale). In Australia, where we based our research on, the minimum wage is (usually) raised every year, and you can actually see little chinks in the data of small business start-ups and hires every time the minimum wage is raised. I'm not sure how much of a good thing this is, as it seems slightly anti-competitive to me, but ensuring that a large minority of the population gets an acceptable wage is also important. How the loss in productivity and the stimulation of the economy compare though, I'm not sure. We also need to ask ourselves if we're willing, as a society, to accept slightly lower growth levels to ensure an equitable distribution of wealth. I, personally, have no idea what's best, so I don't try and prescribe anything, just aware people on the data. I'd be happy to answer some more questions on this matter.

[tk217]

There were, however, many other changes that occured. For one, the savings rate and total investment actually lowered. I suspect this is due to an efficiency change, where money, that would normally be saved by the employer for investment in the business or in other areas, would be handed to the employee. Worker productivity also seemed to take a bit of a dive. Take this with a grain of salt though - although we've had many statisticians and phD's working on it, it is yet to be published and properly peer reviewed. My personal suspicion, and it's just my thinking based on the data and work I've seen, is that a rise in the minimum wage does boost the economy, much like government spending, but takes away to a certain degree from future gains in productivity and investment. How the loss in productivity and the stimulation of the economy compare though, I'm not sure. I'd be happy to answer some more questions on this matter.

No duh. It costs more to do with the _the same_ that is called lowered productivity. Why would an investor invest more into a firm that instantly has lower profits? They immediately look elsewhere to make less risky and better gains. That is called the "shuffle" in the market when you have a tax change or a major sweep like minimum wage.

What ends up stimulating the economy versus loss in productivity is implementation of automation to "re-gain" that lost ground in productivity.

[Final_Rep]

Perhaps I can shed some light on this topic. I spent some time working with the Grattam Instititute) in Melbourne throughout most of 2012 and 2013 to derive econometric models on the relationship on the impact between minimum wages and factors such as employment, overall wages, aggregate demand, etc. It was extremely challenging, and although I left the institute, they are constantly working on the models. The problem is that there are so many factors. One of the things we found was that when minimum wage increases were made, this immediately created an increase in aggregate demand in the economy, obviously due to the increased purchasing power of the employees. This increase in demand seemed to largely offset the decrease in demand associated with the price rises coming from the wage increase.

There were, however, many other changes that occured. For one, the savings rate and total investment actually lowered. I suspect this is due to an inefficient change in resource allocation, where money, that would normally be saved by the employer for investment in the business or in other areas, would be handed to the employee. Worker productivity growth also seemed to take a bit of a dive, but we're still gathering more data on that. Take this all with a grain of salt though - although we've had many statisticians and phD's working on it, it is yet to be published and properly peer reviewed. My personal suspicion, and it's just my thinking based on the data and work I've seen, is that a rise in the minimum wage does boost the economy, much like government spending, but takes away to a certain degree from future gains in productivity and investment.

Another change we noticed was in entrepreneurial starts. Big companies and corporations tend to actually benefit from a higher minimum wage, as they have far lowered fixed costs than small companies (economies of scale). In Australia, where we based our research on, the minimum wage is (usually) raised every year, and you can actually see little chinks in the data of small business start-ups and hires every time the minimum wage is raised. I'm not sure how much of a good thing this is, as it seems slightly anti-competitive to me, but ensuring that a large minority of the population gets an acceptable wage is also important. How the loss in productivity and the stimulation of the economy compare though, I'm not sure. We also need to ask ourselves if we're willing, as a society, to accept slightly lower growth levels to ensure an equitable distribution of wealth. I, personally, have no idea what's best, so I don't try and prescribe anything, just aware people on the data. I'd be happy to answer some more questions on this matter.

IMHO this is a key thought in this. And also one that is extremely hard to predict or control. I have no idea what the right answer is but your post definitely highlights the complexity of the issue. Thx.