4 ms·
It’s an issue I’ve chosen to have no opinion on. I’ve seen studies showing it reduced employment and I’ve seen studies showing it pressured all wages upwards wi
by idontwantthis 3y ago
It’s an issue I’ve chosen to have no opinion on. I’ve seen studies showing it reduced employment and I’ve seen studies showing it pressured all wages upwards without reducing employment.
In the end: IDK but it doesn’t seem like the best issue to focus on to help people.
- dexzod 3y agoBut doesn't it help the state overall, because more people will become ineligible for tax breaks and other diverse subsidies and programs the state offer's for the low-income households. Has any study taken a look at that?
- jstarfish 3y agoI had the same thought: 35hr x $7 = 245, x4 weeks = $980 35hr x $15 = 525, x4 weeks = $2100 At my poorest (and with 3 dependents) EBT only ever paid out $~650 a month. The gross delta here is $1120. So the state should come out ahead. But all I've heard of is hours being cut in line with wage increases. So few workers are pulling that $2100 and are presumably still on benefits.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoSurely there is some level at which it will reduce unemployment. So really it’s just an argument as to what the right level is.