Should the minimum wage exist ever?

[Mavorpen]

Only if you don't know how to read graphs.

If you actually look at it, instead of posting it and assuming it works, with one major exception, almost every time it jumps, lots of 16-24 suddenly get unemployed. This again only proves my point.

Uh, no. Again, you clearly aren't reading the graph.

[Mkuki]

Yes.

And yet, these typically aren't used, mostly because they can offset the increase without touching their prices or laying off workers or do nothing at all because the minimum wage can actually increase their profit margin.

That is what you think, but that is actually false.
Every time the minimum wage has gone up, the unemployment rate has gone up rather significantly.

There's no consensus on that.

Full paper discussed in above article.

[Bojikami]

Yes. There should be.

[The Padelas Empire]

There should be some minimum wage, but I present that raising it will cost more for more people, causing certain people not to get jobs.

In the USA, the amount earned per hour (after everything is taken out) is $7.25, but, in reality it is closer to $14-16 dollars, depending on the benefits.
A wage of maybe 4 or 5 dollars would be better than 7.25, as at that wage, prices go down, and more younger (16-18) people get hired.

So, yes, but to a point.

This

I did not notice this, but this a very good presentation of it.

[Mavorpen]

Wait, were you going to provide sources that don't agree with you because you can't read graphs?

Nope merely out to bash you now on every reason why I didn't provide you with sources and to show how predictable you are and have been.

...Because I would have read your source and pointed out that it doesn't support your argument?

You do realize that that's now debates work, right?

[Demen 2]

Waste of money. People should work instead of depending on the government.

What you're really saying here is that you'd rather have people depend on a distant board of directors and corporate administrators who extract a huge amount of wealth off their labor and give them crumbs for it.

^^^^

No, living wages tailored to one's needs, or an average on what the average person needs to survive. At the very least, the paltry minimum wage given should be raised significantly.

[Cyyro]

Please, do tell me how.

Minimum wage can significantly decrease turnover rates, which improves efficiency and can increase profit margin.

Oh God. This is like me asking a question about Charles Darwin, you answering it, and then you giving me a Biology textbook for a source.

[Mavorpen]

Minimum wage can significantly decrease turnover rates, which improves efficiency and can increase profit margin.

Oh God. This is like me asking a question about Charles Darwin, you answering it, and then you giving me a Biology textbook for a source.

Have you never heard of "Ctrl+F"?

Or are you THAT desperate to not be wrong?

[Demen 2]

Only if you don't know how to read graphs.

If you actually look at it, instead of posting it and assuming it works, with one major exception, almost every time it jumps, lots of 16-24 suddenly get unemployed. This again only proves my point.

"What I said proves my point because I said it and I'm right."

[Mkuki]

Only if you don't know how to read graphs.

If you actually look at it, instead of posting it and assuming it works, with one major exception, almost every time it jumps, lots of 16-24 suddenly get unemployed. This again only proves my point.

Here's the article that said graph comes from.

[The Broken Russian States]

If you actually look at it, instead of posting it and assuming it works, with one major exception, almost every time it jumps, lots of 16-24 suddenly get unemployed. This again only proves my point.

Uh, no. Again, you clearly aren't reading the graph.

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

[The Padelas Empire]

Nope merely out to bash you now on every reason why I didn't provide you with sources and to show how predictable you are and have been.

...Because I would have read your source and pointed out that it doesn't support your argument?

You do realize that that's now debates work, right?

You have dismissed a very good source already, what's not to say that you wont dismiss every source that doesn't agree with your point of view, in which case it is not debating. That is talking to a rock.

[Mavorpen]

Uh, no. Again, you clearly aren't reading the graph.

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

No it doesn't. Sometimes the green line precedes the red line, and other times, such as during the 1960s, the red line plummets while the green line INCREASES.

You haven't read the graph.

[Mkuki]

Here's the article that said graph comes from.

Uh, no. Again, you clearly aren't reading the graph.

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

[Mkuki]

Uh, no. Again, you clearly aren't reading the graph.

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

Also:

[The Padelas Empire]

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

No it doesn't. Sometimes the green line precedes the red line, and other times, such as during the 1960s, the red line plummets while the green line INCREASES.

You haven't read the graph.

The employment rate also may have been dropped due to the increase of government jobs during that time especially in the defense department. That could cause a significant drop in the unemployment.

[Mkuki]

No it doesn't. Sometimes the green line precedes the red line, and other times, such as during the 1960s, the red line plummets while the green line INCREASES.

You haven't read the graph.

The employment rate also may have been dropped due to the increase of government jobs during that time especially in the defense department. That could cause a significant drop in the unemployment.

Here's the article that said graph comes from.

[Cyyro]

Oh God. This is like me asking a question about Charles Darwin, you answering it, and then you giving me a Biology textbook for a source.

Have you never heard of "Ctrl+F"?

Or are you THAT desperate to not be wrong?

What exactly would I put in? Plus, the source is from berkeley, a californian school. And we all know California's stance on this.

[The Broken Russian States]

I read just fine. Almost every time the red line goes up, the green line goes up as well.

No it doesn't. Sometimes the green line precedes the red line, and other times, such as during the 1960s, the red line plummets while the green line INCREASES.

You haven't read the graph.

With one major exception I said, thank you,

and almost.

But most of the time it does.

I'm sorry for disagreeing with you. It seems that evidence in my favour that you found isn't good enough

[Swanderfeld]

That chart works against your argument, not for it. Thanks for the assist.

Actually no, if you bothered to actually read the graph, it proves that lowering the minimum wage raises unemployment.

No. It does none of those; it shows there is hardly any correlation between the two.
1954ish: MW consistent; UE rises sharply.
1956ish: MW increases; UE decreases slightly.
1954-1963ish: MW decreases very slightly; UE fluctuates twice between sharp rise and falls before ending higher than before.
1963-1968: MW rises sharply; UE decreashes sharply.
1968-1982: MW rises slightly; UE increases sharply.
1981:1990: MW steadily decreases UE rises sharply before dropping down to lower level than before.
1990-1992: MW rises slightly; UE rises sharply.
1992:1994: MW decreases slightly; UE decreases sharply.
1994:1997: MW rises slightly; UE continues steady decline.
1997:2008: MW decreases steadily; UE continues decline till 2000 when it goes through sharp rise before falling steadily again.
2008-2012: MW rises up slightly; UE goes through crazy increase.

Only conclusion that can be drawn is lack of significant correlation.

[Mavorpen]

No it doesn't. Sometimes the green line precedes the red line, and other times, such as during the 1960s, the red line plummets while the green line INCREASES.

You haven't read the graph.

The employment rate also may have been dropped due to the increase of government jobs during that time especially in the defense department. That could cause a significant drop in the unemployment.

Or, these are business cycles, something that every single economist are aware of. Of COURSE there is going to be an increase in unemployment at least once following an increase in the minimum wage. Unemployment naturally fluctuates like that, and the chances that the two WOULDN'T ever follow each other is extremely low.

[Mavorpen]

With one major exception I said, thank you,

No. There are are least two major exceptions, and both of these exceptions happen during periods of SEVERAL years.

[Death Metal]

Only if you don't know how to read graphs.

If you actually look at it, instead of posting it and assuming it works, with one major exception, almost every time it jumps, lots of 16-24 suddenly get unemployed. This again only proves my point.

Again, you're not reading the graph.

c 1957- Wage increases, minimal unemployment change
c 1958-1962- Wage decreases, unemployment sharply rises
c 1962- Wage increases, employment sharply lowers
1965-1970- Several increases, unemployment drops each time.
1970-1975- Wage lowers, unemployment rises
c1976-1980- Wage increases, unemployment sharply lowers
1983- Wages lower, unemployment skyrockets, does not drop to 1980 levels until the first Gulf War
1996-1998- Wages increase, unemployment decreases
2000-2010- Wages decrease, unemployment rises.

[Seriong]

Oh God. This is like me asking a question about Charles Darwin, you answering it, and then you giving me a Biology textbook for a source.

Have you never heard of "Ctrl+F"?

Or are you THAT desperate to not be wrong?

Well, when one cites something, it's usually at least courtesy to provide a page number.

[Mavorpen]

Also, you apparently have forgotten what you originally claimed.

Yes.

And yet, these typically aren't used, mostly because they can offset the increase without touching their prices or laying off workers or do nothing at all because the minimum wage can actually increase their profit margin.

That is what you think, but that is actually false.
Every time the minimum wage has gone up, the unemployment rate has gone up rather significantly.

Last time I checked, "every" doesn't mean "most of the time."