Will the poor LOSE benefits, if the Minimum Wage is raised dramatically?

[Liberal Insights]

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

A very knowledgeable liberal friend of mine says that raising the minimum wage dramatically could be a DISASTER for poor people if they end up LOSING state benefits that they now enjoy because they would then exceed the maximum income that is allowed, and end up WORSE OFF than they are now!!!

P.S. I've been away for some time, so please forgive me if this has been discussed already, and direct me to that discussion. Thank you.

Edit: Maybe the first 10 respondents didn't get my point because I didn't make it clear that I was referring to state benefits, benefits that are denied to people whose private income exceeds a certain amount.

[onecaliberal]

1. Offs pay people a living wage and they won't need as much assistance if at all.

It's common sense. Your friend doesn't care because it's not him working for slave wages.

[Vote2016]

2. That's so preposterous you may need another exclamation point.

[Dem2]

4. Another odd side effect (this isn't an argument against $15 minimum wage)

...is a friend of mine who's worked hard, gone to school, to earn just over $15/hr doing administrative work. I pointed out that it's implemented over time, but I can sense the resentment from a mile away.

[Hortensis]

9. Yes and oh well. Those people will always be with us.

Plenty who are a drag on the greater society are fine contributing members in their personal smaller worlds.

Liberal Insights, I once suggested to a small employer neighbor who insisted jobs would be lost, etc., that he try asking his employees if they'd support a minimum wage increase to $12 (from $7.25!) if it meant 2 or even 3 of the 8 would be let go. Lol. I'm pretty sure the point got across and also that he never did.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Who wants to raise it dramatically?

[Ash_F]

6. You friend does not know what they are talking about

I hope you can help them.

[quaker bill]

7. no

most benefits "go away" at the rate of $1.00 loss for each $2.00 to $3.00 to as much as $4.00 of income you make above a threshold. In short, more money earned is always more money in your pocket. This is really a quite intentional feature in the set up of these programs. The goal is to incentivize earning more money on your own, so they set up the benefits so that they gradually decline as you make more money, so that earning more always means you have more.

Been there, done that.

[Vinca]

8. That makes no sense.

If the minimum wage is raised, people will have more money to spend. Businesses will need to retain employees to serve all the new customers so it wouldn't be wise to start slashing benefits. A person might be poor, but it doesn't mean they can't find new employment if they are dissatisfied with their current employer.

[Barack_America]

10. Um, that's the "getting rid of corporate welfare" bit...

...requiring businesses to pay their employees a living wage, rather than having taxpayers subsidize their wages.

[B Calm]

11. Predatory Capitalism needs a sprinkle of Socialism to keep it in check.

[Liberal Insights]

12. Have any of the respondents above BEEN on welfare?

I haven't seen any evidence that any of the respondents above have BEEN on welfare.
Welfare for those with low-incomes is DIFFERENT in every state, because that is the level where welfare is handled. So I can only speak from experience in MY state. But I doubt this much differs in OTHER states:

1. The state ONLY gives help to people whom it recognizes as "needy" (or whatever term they use).
2. The state DEFINES the amount of income BELOW WHICH it recognizes as "needy" and DESERVING of assistance, and ABOVE WHICH people are deemed NOT NEEDY and NOT DESERVING of assistance.

I've been through this, and there was no sliding scale or anything. Our circumstances made us entitled to some very helpful benefits for a while. But, once our family's income WENT UP just a little, and exceeded their "CAP", our assistance was IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED, as we were no longer considered "needy." That's the way it works.

Who care's if you're "a bleeding heart liberal" - as am I - if, while INTENDING to help the working-poor by raising their minimum wage, you cause the UNINTENDED consequence of making them LOSE MORE in the end, than they GAIN in the short run? I'm not OPPOSED to raising the minimum wage for the working-poor . I am FOR making their lives BETTER OVER ALL!

[Liberal Insights]

13. Please review the OP & my #12 follow-up, because

this is a very important issue which may well come back to bite us liberals & Democrats, if we don't pay sufficient attention to the way poor people manage their lives.

[EndElectoral]

14. Should the min wage be lowered so more people get more benefits?

[reformist2]

15. Yes. Which will lead us to a real 21st century solution to this problem - guaranteed minimum income.

That is, everyone has a right to some sort of livable income, whether you can find work - or not!

And actually, it's not a 21st century idea - it's an 18th century idea, whose time has come.