SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38996)2/13/2013 8:25:24 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Sure if someone is at minimum wage before and after, they have a higher income after the increase, and they will spend more. But people who lose their jobs, or never get jobs, because of the higher minimum wage won't.

Also its a bit odd to represent economic well being of the individual, and/or how healthy something is for the economy as a whole, just by spending levels. In this case the higher income is good for the individual whether or not they spend it. As for the economy as a whole extra spending isn't always helpful, and other things that can be done with the money can be healthy.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38996)2/13/2013 11:51:04 AM
From: i-node2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
>> 2011 Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago study showed that a $1 hike in the rate increases spending by $2,800 a year in households with minimum wage workers.

And how is that a good thing?

What about the poor people who lost jobs because of increased cost of hiring, and the people who had their hours cut back? Did the FRB take that into account?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News