By law labour can't be worth less than the minimum wage. Workers won't lose any skills, the same work will remain. How are they banned from the job market?
Labour worth is not decided by law, but by cost-benefit. If you make people unable to work for less than the minimum wage you're excluding a huge chunk of people from jobs. Artficial attempts to raise wages will make the employee cost higher than their benefit, forcing the employer to reorganize.
The minimum wage IS decided by law. You still haven't answered how they're excluded from the job market. Why shouldn't an employer reorganize so they can provide a minimum wage to their workers?
A minimum wage law might be made, but that has no influence on labour value, you're simply saying people have to work for a minimum amount or don't work at all. This black and white view on economics is what causes income inequality. Limiting industries hurts everyone, not just the top.
You still haven't answered how they're excluded from the job market. A minimum wage raises labour value as long as employers don't get greedy and dramatically increase inflation. Not limiting industries hurts everyone, not just the poor.
(1/2) Person A, B and C's labour are worth 5$/h. All three are employed. It costs their employer 15$/h, but he benefits 20$/h.
Let's try to artificially raise wages by law, say to 7$/h. It now costs their employer 21$/h with a benefit of 20$/h. A change must be made to compensate.
The employer can either: -Raise the price of the goods sold
or
-Fire one of the employees
Both will result in either higher prices or higher unemployment. That's why economic interventionism generally causes both. We shouldn't benefit a few by sacrificing the weakest.
You still haven't answered how they're excluded from the job market. Why shouldn't an employer reorganize so they can provide a minimum wage to their workers?
Third and last time I try to explain the same thing to you;
They are excluded from the job market because you are making it illegal for people to sell their labour at the price they want, instead focusing on artifical limits, which hurt employee and employer.
With these labour limits you are saying ''You have to work for *set amount* or you don't get to work at all!'', which is often followed by pretending to catch them with welfare programs while being the very reason they got there.
This creates inequality and unnatural differences between incomes.
It hurts the profits of those at the top of a company. It only hurts the poor if those at the top are greedy and don't want their profits lowered to help the poor.
Greed is the causal factor in the argument. It is not an ad hominem attack to avoid the argument in question. Greed causes companies not to want lower profits. This causes price raises. This hurts the poor. Take out greed and the top still profits while workers earn more.
''Greed'' as you define it would include an employer offering jobs, but would not include taxation.
It is not a company's responsibility to pay their employee's a living wage and any attempt to force it stagnates the economy, reduces jobs, raises prices, and widens the gap between rich and poor.
ubister
