Yes, of course. In addition, the number of jobs does not increase (workers are replaced by workers and by machines, so the number of jobs decreases) but decreases very quickly, so that the number of the workless persons and welfare recipients (social benefit claimants) increases very quickly - let alone the higher cost of the repair of destroyment, vandalism, of more prisons, more police actions, more policemen, more social workers, more courts, more officers, more judges, more prosecutors, more lawyers (did Carleas mean this jobs? 
) … and so on.
Carleas: to assume immigrants spend all their money on products, is simply not entirely factual.
Most immigrants, undocumented that is, send most of their money back to ther families, since they came
to US leaving their families behind. Therefore what
happens, is that money is draining overseas,
changing the balance of trade.
I thought you may want to factor that in.
Increasing immigrant flow increases government dependence and thus government size and authority. Government eventually must take over all jobs to ensure “proper” utilization of the working masses. Thus government jobs increase in number and private business management jobs decrease in authority and in number - Socialism created through promoted immigration.
I’m not seeing how total employment necessarily changes in any direction due to an increase merely in immigration as long as the population size remains the same. But such migrations do increase obfuscation and the ability to manipulate all facets of society; racial balance, beliefs, allegiances, mindsets, … Immigrants are more easily conned into unwittingly giving more authority to the governance. A policemen can merely say, “it is the law”, and the immigrant seldom knows or has the confidence to question (not that non-immigrants are all that up on the law or confident either). Policemen in the USA have no obligation at all to tell the truth to citizens concerning anything (nor do lawyers or judges).
… and what allows for people like Billary Trump be the only candidates for president of the largest military force on the planet.
I think the evidence on this point is conflicting. We seem to agree that minimum wage increases cause inflation, and inflation would reduce, if not eliminate, the gains for the remaining workers.
But I think it’s important to look at all workers, not just the remaining workers. Studies also show that the lowest-skilled workers face a significant negative impact of a minimum wage. And the remaining workers tend to be second or third income earners: high school students, stay-at-home spouses, etc., i.e. frequently workers who are otherwise better off. So the redistributive effect of the minimum wage isn’t even certain for that class of workers who do benefit.
This is a good point, a minimum wage will at most accelerate adoption that would have happened anyway. But I think it is still an effective criticism of the minimum wage: automation means more and more people won’t be able to provide labor that a machine couldn’t do at a lower cost, so the minimum wage will tend to hit fewer and fewer people. And if, as I’ve claimed, the more vulnerable workers will be the most negatively effected by these trends, then over time the minimum wage will increasingly benefit the most well-off workers at the expense of a growing class of zero marginal product workers.
I should say, I take as a given then, because no policy intervention is free, we shouldn’t implement any policy that we expect not to provide a net social benefit. If the net benefit of the minimum wage is roughly zero (and we have good empirical evidence that it is), then even without any additional negative effects like those I’m presenting here, shouldn’t we reject it? Perhaps the question is better put like this: what is the cost to society of implementing a minimum wage against which we should weigh its benefits (we seem to agree that it is not zero)?
I agree with this, and that’s a part of why I support a basic income. The minimum wage addresses the problem by making very-low-skill, low-value jobs uneconomical. A basic income addresses it by giving very-low-skilled workers a real choice about whether or not a very-low-paying, very-low-skill job is beneath them.
James, Jerky, Arminius, the actual observed outcomes of immigration conflict with what you’re saying. Studies estimate that each additional immigrant creates 2 local jobs, mostly of the sort that can’t be offshored. A report looking at violence and criminality among immigrants and comparing it native-born citizens found that immigrants are on the whole less criminal, less violent and antisocial, less of a behavior problem than their native-born counterparts (as in, 2-5 times less likely to commit crimes, be incarcerated, or reoffend after incarceration). And while the cost benefit analysis of immigration is not settled, at least some reputable studies find that on net, immigrants pay more in taxes than they do in services. This stands to reason since immigrants frequently pay for services they are ineligible to receive, like Social Security.
Complete propaganda bullshit hidden in obscure studies formed to appear just, yet leave out critical details concerning exactly who is actually benefiting in what sort of way (ie. government vs private citizens). The only kinds of jobs being increased are governing and machine jobs (the very point in raising the minimum wage).
The thing to do is look at the unemployment rate vs immigration rate (not that honest statistics could be found for either).
…and then using immigrants to pay for the social security of prior residents?? 
What is the difference between immigrants paying for SSI and young residents paying for it?
This an empirical claim, so show your source.
In general, the claim that sources either back up what you already believe or are lying to cover up some evil conspiracy is particularly weak.
Political arguments are always “weak” on all sides. They are meaningless drivel attempting to use math and statistics to persuade and influence while dodging questions. “Weakness” is all about showmanship, not reality.
I’ll start answering questions from you when you start answering them from me.
I am not arguing against “Progressive Opposition to a MW”, but merely some of the arguments put forth in the effort to justify it.
Both rates are exponentially increasing in West and Central Europe - and I am pretty sure: in North America (USA and Canada) as well.
Carleas, stop believing in the lying propaganda with its faked statistics.
Hello Carleas
Over time there will be inflation but it does not mean that it will wipe out the gains in purchasing power afforded by a higher min. wage. It depends on many other factors.
These workers you mention form the majority of min. wage workers so it should not be a surprised if what is left resembles this group.
I would like to point out that more important than the redistribution of wealth, a higher min. wage simply eliminates case of working poor workers, those that put in 40 hours and yet live in poverty. The min. wage should guarantee a livable wage. Inflation will erode some of the positive effects of a higher wage, but not completely and, as it does, you would see employers, charging more, being able to retain and even hire more. Employment is affected by many factors. A higher wage changes the dynamics but it does not bring about doomsday, and, since it doesn’t, it should be considered. Within the law there can be safeguards that should soften the negative effects. Seattle gave small owners a couple of years more to increase their wages. In essence this will give them time to figure out how to absorb the costs while enjoying a competitive advantage over franchise restaurants. I don’t believe that human labor is a commodity which follows the same rules of supply and demand. Higher costs, the argument goes, on labor reduces demand for labor. Labor is not like a beer or a cookies which we could go without if the price becomes too expensive for what we think it is worth. Labor is like medicine to a business and I would predict that either the labor costs will be absorbed or an appropriate substitute (automation, foreign labor, illegal workers) will be sought by employers. Automation and foreign labor is only available in some industries and illegal workers are not easy to hide, so, as far as the fast food restaurant example, I think that inflation (as it happened in NJ) is the most likely outcome. No doubt, under-performing branches will be cut and there will be more available workers on unemployment lines, but this is a short term effect. What happens after is an increase in purchasing power which creates demand and if inflation is really that high that means that the money is there to employ those workers. Like previous wage hikes eventually the employment levels return to a new normal.
Now the issue I have is with the calculation itself that sees a direct correlation between wages and employment because it is the same that decides that off shoring operations is best. Going after the lowest wages is not always translated in net profits for the company. If higher min. wage is bad for the unemployed, is a decrease of the min. wage better? Would it lead to more employment? No, in my opinion, because demand cannot be manufactured. You can increase capacity but this only means you are willing to take more chances, but eventually, if no one is buying your product, then there is no point to employ anyway at any wage. Less money in the worker’s pocket means less demand for goods. It is a vicious cycle that forms.
While automation means a decrease in certain jobs it would affect more those workers working for a min. wage as a second income (students, wives etc.). Workers who can give their entire day for availability will be able to retain the positions that are left.
What is this “good empirical evidence”? If anything experts point to the complexity on gauging the effects-- you instead make it sound as if it was easy.
You ask a good question. Now I would ask: Why have a mandated minimum wage at all? Doesn’t that kill jobs? Perhaps the answer is to provide a living wage. Is every company a good idea? Forbes article brought up a good point: “Arguments in favour of a minimum wage mostly hang on the idea that firms have a responsibility to ensure that their workers earn enough to live on. If a firm can’t pay its workers enough to live on, then it isn’t a viable business, because it is dependent on wage subsidies.” (forbes.com/sites/francescopp … 86f4f560c5). Even if some jobs are lost, even if some companies close, their customers represent a demand in need of supply and someone will inherit that demand and decide to provide a supply creating jobs that pay someone rather than occupy someone that is paid in reality by the state.
Sure, but even working in a pack to provide food, water, and shelter is a far cry from operating a toothpaste mixer or whatever. In that pack, what you’re doing directly relates to the pack’s (and so your own) survival. In the case of operating a toothpaste mixer, spending that much time doing something that has nothing to do with your needs would work against your survival were it not for compensation. Which is why the compensation has to be adequate to sustain survival. It may be that the market will just ensure that it stays that way anyway, I’m not an economist. But it seems to me that if there is a job that takes up all of a person’s time and doesn’t compensate them enough to take care of their basic needs, that is a job that won’t get done, and if you have that as a widespread problem, you’re looking at some sort of societal collapse.
Not if we’re trying to have a society that replaces pack-based subsistence living with something else. And we do, because a small pack of humans looking after their own subsistence can’t produce the next Star Wars movie.