B Minimum Wage 15 The noneconomists view of the minimum wage

B. Minimum Wage (15) The non-economist\'s view of the minimum wage seems to be that it forces greedy employers pay poor workers more money, making all workers better off. The \"conventional\" economic view of an increase in the minimum wage is that, as with most public policies, there are winners (those unskilled workers who keep their jobs and earn more) and losers (those workers who lose their jobs). What is the \"unconventional\" view and how does it alter that calculus of gains and losses?

Solution

Answer:

One of the big reasons the world economy is so lusy is that big companies are hoarding cash and maximizing profits instead of investing in their people and future projects.

this behavior is contributing to record income inequality in the country and starving in the country and serving the primary engine of world economic growth- purchasing power .

If average employers don’t get paid living wages, they can’t spend much many buying products and services. And when average employers cant buy products and services, the companies that sell products and services to employers cant grow. So the profit obsession of owners big companies is, ironically, hurting theirr ability to accelerate revenue growth.

One obvious solution to thos problem is for big companies to pay their people more- to share more of the vast wealth that they create with the people who create it.

the companies have record profit margins, os they can certainly afford to do this.

But, unfortunately, over the past there decades, what began as a healthy and necessary effort to make our companies more efficient has evolved into a wrapped consensus that the only value that companies create is financial and that only thing managers and owners should ever worry about is making more of it.

This view is an insut to anyone who has ever dreamed of having a job that is about more than money. And it is a short sighted and destructive view of capitalism, an economic system that sustains not just one country but countries in the world.

This view has become deeply entrenched, though.

These days, if you suggest that feat companies should serve several constituencies and that world companies should share more of theire wealth with the people who generate it, you get called a socialism. you get called a liberal. You get told that you dont understand economics. You get accused of promoting \"wealth confiscation. In world, people get paid what they deserrve to get paid. Anyone who wants more money should go out and start their own comapny or demand a rise or get a beeter job.

In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all there constituencies instead of just linining tha pockets of shareholderrs is an idiot.

After all, these folks, sayone law of capitalism are that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just costs. you should try to minimize those costs whenever and where ever you can.

This view unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It is also economically stupid those costs ayour ar minimizing are also current and prospective suctomers for your company and other comapnies. And the less money the have, the fewer products and servies they are going to buy.