In the lecture on minimum age, Mark Price raises quite a few interesting ideas, and makes quite a few good arguments. He argues for the federal raising of minimum wage, arguing that it will help, close the gap between the rich and the poor, He gives us proof of why his account is correct, and provides proof why the other sides arguments are invalid. Price opened the lecture discussing how the exact prices of minimum wage and gave us some facts to hold onto throughout the lecture, to help us get a more clear picture. The first thing he started with was that his aim was to educate us on why we should raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. He also makes mention of tipped wage. Tipped wage, is the minimum wage of workers who are expected
…show more content…
For example, in 1938 the federal minimum wage was twenty-five cents per hour, the equivalence to $3.61 in today’s economy. In 1968 the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, the equivalence to $9.39 in today’s economy. Yet in 2014, the federal minimum wage is 7.25, which is startling because production is up 93%, but the minimum wage is down 16%. A fact that is going against historical standard we have set in place. Realizing this twenty-three states have raised there minimum wages above federal limits, and thirteen have enacted an auto-adjustment for inflation into their minimum wage, so that no matter what, if inflation increases so will minimum wage automatically. Price blames the shortcomings of minimum wage on the government for neglecting to raise the minimum wage with inflation. He makes the interesting point that money talks, he gives us figures of money that candidates running for office will receives, and with the donations towards their campaign those donating are able to catch the candidate’s attention more than most. Leaving those with less, unable to be seen as important as those who have more and are able to donate to the …show more content…
However one topic, I wish he had gone into more depth about would be on whether or not raising the minimum wage will lead to an increase in goods people purchase to make up for the extra cost it now takes to supply it? If this is a possible occurrence and is actually one of the cornerstones of the debate against raising the minimum wage, why would he not even make mention of it? I was truly hoping to have more light in what exactly would happen if the federal minimum wage were to be raised by 10% to $10.10 an hour? If it really is a problem that people aren’t earning as much as they need to be with minimum wage as is it currently is, wouldn’t it be easier to lower the income tax and allow the workers to keep a larger sum of their money, than giving them more and having a good chink taken away by the government? I feel by going to this lecture I am now more insightful on the topic of the problems acing those subsisting on minimum wage as their ole income, but I feel Mark price left a few topics out that would of helped him make his case more strong. If by raising the minimum wage, the price of goods would have to increase to help supplement the new cost of production, in the end cancel out anything the rise in pay is trying to accomplish? Would it not also harm those whose pay is not raised and isn’t affect, because with the new cost to buy goods and no
For example, in 1938 the federal minimum wage was twenty-five cents per hour, the equivalence to $3.61 in today’s economy. In 1968 the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, the equivalence to $9.39 in today’s economy. Yet in 2014, the federal minimum wage is 7.25, which is startling because production is up 93%, but the minimum wage is down 16%. A fact that is going against historical standard we have set in place. Realizing this twenty-three states have raised there minimum wages above federal limits, and thirteen have enacted an auto-adjustment for inflation into their minimum wage, so that no matter what, if inflation increases so will minimum wage automatically. Price blames the shortcomings of minimum wage on the government for neglecting to raise the minimum wage with inflation. He makes the interesting point that money talks, he gives us figures of money that candidates running for office will receives, and with the donations towards their campaign those donating are able to catch the candidate’s attention more than most. Leaving those with less, unable to be seen as important as those who have more and are able to donate to the …show more content…
However one topic, I wish he had gone into more depth about would be on whether or not raising the minimum wage will lead to an increase in goods people purchase to make up for the extra cost it now takes to supply it? If this is a possible occurrence and is actually one of the cornerstones of the debate against raising the minimum wage, why would he not even make mention of it? I was truly hoping to have more light in what exactly would happen if the federal minimum wage were to be raised by 10% to $10.10 an hour? If it really is a problem that people aren’t earning as much as they need to be with minimum wage as is it currently is, wouldn’t it be easier to lower the income tax and allow the workers to keep a larger sum of their money, than giving them more and having a good chink taken away by the government? I feel by going to this lecture I am now more insightful on the topic of the problems acing those subsisting on minimum wage as their ole income, but I feel Mark price left a few topics out that would of helped him make his case more strong. If by raising the minimum wage, the price of goods would have to increase to help supplement the new cost of production, in the end cancel out anything the rise in pay is trying to accomplish? Would it not also harm those whose pay is not raised and isn’t affect, because with the new cost to buy goods and no