I agree with all that already, the application of this should be for “head of household” employees. If you want a minimum wage of $15 an hour for people that fit “head of household” then fine but even $15 an hour isn’t high enough for those people.
So you want a system created for a 'head of household' designation that has a different payscale than a "non head of household?" Isn't every single person a "head of household?"
Now for those young people who are working part time, entry level employees should be excluded from this and employers should be able to pay these kind of employees $7.25 an hour.
Don’t know how else to say it for you.
Non head of household employees should make the same. They're working fewer hours. What you're not analyzing is that the 'head of household' wage at $15/hr should already have been at $25/hr.
We both agree that 'heads of households' are underpaid for their services and just accept the status quo.
A higher minimum wage reduces income inequality while providing an incentive to work. The incentive makes it better for society than welfare or a universal basic income.
A higher MW reduces income inequality and poverty. The incentive to work doesn't change because work is required to live and pay bills.
There is no increase in incentive to work. The majority of Americans work and accept the law of under $10/hr. Those same people aren't gaining more incentive if that changes to $15/hr. The incentive remains due to cost of living, bills, etc.
Workers who can cover the cost of living have better morale. They are more productive if they have a decent standard of living.
Correct.
Minimum wage laws benefit individual businesses. Workers are less likely to leave to find a higher-paying job. This reduces turnover and expensive retraining costs.
MW laws benefit business because it helps profits. MW laws can hurt the American people more.
It has been shown that when companies choose to pay their burger flippers more than the MW, this reduces turnover and expensive retraining costs.
