This article he wrote in March of 2013 was not in favor of raising minimum wage. He argued that a higher wage makes it more expensive for firms to hire workers. Making businesses required to pay a higher minimum wage results in fewer employees getting hired. Businesses can not afford to pay all of their employees a higher salary. If minimum wage is increased the result will be more people getting laid off from work.
Each year thousands of workers complain that they are not getting paid enough. They want to be able to afford things other than the basic necessities. What they do not know is that if the minimum wage were to be raised, they would be a lot more likely to make even less money- 0$ an hour. The minimum wage has been debated for years. Some say that raising the minimum wage will lift people out of poverty and provide a higher standard of living for everyone.
These lead to reduce the amount of money spent by the business owners in recruiting and training new workers. 3) Raising wages can reduce absenteeism: The absence rate would decrease when the workers are paid higher wages, which meaning more productivity. On the other hand, opponents believe that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment, harm the less skilled labor and increase the prices. Opponent’s opinion is that minimum wage forces the employers to hire fewer employees because they have to pay more to their workers and the cost will increase. Other opponents say that it can increase the prices as businesses must raise their prices to adjust the higher wage and keep the profit stable.
Trading company must be profitable. Not only that, all the businesses produce lots of product and because of employment rate is higher, economics growth rapidly. To prevent saving money in a bank, the central bank conducts a monetary policy and low interest rate encourage people to spend more money. Fiscal policy is conducted too. As was When Government expenditure cut for trying to stop stagflation that causes of economic down turn in stagflation, it is important to stimulate the supply side for that company have to create a new effective machine and reduce cost of manufacturing then aggregate demand of other countries will up.
A low turnover will benefit the employer as more money will be freed up from training a new employee. The immediate rise in consumer spending will have a chain reaction effect. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the country will see a rise, and the economy will thrive. Companies will see a boost in sales and demand. Thus, creating a need for more employees to facilitate this increase.
If it wasn’t for sweatshops then there would be many more unemployed people hitting rock bottom to feed their children or siblings. III. Sweatshops’ impact on economy A. New jobs are created, resulting in economic growth. a) In the grand scheme of things, workers in sweatshops are better off with the factories than they would be without them; the benefits outweigh the risks.
Advocates of supply-side economics prefer tax cuts. They say it frees up businesses to hire more workers to pursue business ventures. For more, see Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Advocates of demand-side economics say additional spending is more effective than tax cuts. Examples include public works projects, unemployment benefits and food stamps.
Those who are unemployed will use the money to buy their basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. By doing so, it help to expand the economy due to the ripple effect. This ripple effect creates additional benefits and keeps demands strong. Besides that, government can set the higher minimum wage to attract the discouraged worker re-enter to the labour market. Since it may increases the unemployment rate, government can provide the employment subsidies to the companies for taking on long-term unemployed.
The more people that are unemployed, the less money being used to buy things which hurts the economy. When people don’t have jobs or are scared about losing their jobs, it affects the way they buy things (consumer confidence, their will to or not to spend their money) which in return, hurts the economy. If the minimum wage is increased then certain businesses won’t be able to survive. To survive they’d be tempted and driven to take their company or at least the work to other countries where it’d be cheaper to make. So many stores, shops, and establishments will be forced to close or lay off workers.
Nutritional efficiency model which states that higher income would lead to higher productivity because employees can afford more nutrients (Carmichael, 1990). The shirking model which assumes that because it is inefficient and costly to monitor employees performance, therefore paying them above market wages is the only way to incentivizes them not to shirk and work harder. Yellen (1984) pointed out that people who quit usually do so because of personal reasons and retrenchments and not because they were caught shirking. Imperfect monitoring is the main problem why firms need to pay efficiency wages and if perfect monitoring is possible in the real world, there would be no need to pay efficiency wages and no involuntary