"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:r330i39lgcpsvpfh8ilitpgp8ldl0o9kt6{at}4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:48:08 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:k4luh39tl56p7oh1dcnsg7htcfukini89q{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:06:40 -0500, "Lance Corporal
\"Hammer\"
> >> Schultz"  wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Fortunately, economists can do more than guess. Their models and
> >> projections may not be entirely accurate, but they don't have to be to
> >> serve as a useful guide to policy.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I don't think your explanation is correct. This isn't a
> >> zero-sum game. If a store needs ten minimum-wage checkout clerks at 10
> >> AM, they aren't going to lay some off just because the minimum wage
> >> goes up. What they'll do for the most part is pass along the increase
> >> to their customers. Which will lead to some minor income
> >> redistribution, precisely the desired outcome.
> >
> >Which increases the cost of living, which then makes the liveabe
wage...no
> >longer a liveable wage, as companies pass on their wage increases
> >:-)
>
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But, really, with a per
> capita income of something like $40,000 per year, we have more than
> enough money to pay everyone a decent wage without imposing on anyone
> (that comes to $160,000 for a family of four!).

So how much of your current income are you willing to give up?

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32