Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (145281)	8/23/2014 8:42:00 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

<I don't give much credence to this for several reasons. A poor in CA is considered relatively rich to a poor in say South Dakota or South Carolina. M OK.. Fair Enough.. Then creating a $12 dollar an hour Federal Minimum wage would create a "windfall" for those in say "South Dakota or South Carolina, while the "poor in CA" wouldn't enjoy the financial impact of it as much as someone one South Carolina. Also due to the supposed "higher wealth in California", then business and consumers could better digest the price increases associated with a $12 an hour "locally administered" Minimium Wage in parts of California, than say those in South Carolina. Welfare recipients in South Carolina receive lower benefits than those in California because of the cost differential. This is how "minimum wage" should be administered. At the Local Level. If the local level's minimum wage is lower than surrounding areas. Then the local area will lose workers to surrounding areas. PCSTEL