Quote:The jobs would be filled, but for how long?  You then run into the "trickle up" effect.  Say for instance, someone that works in an industry that requires some form of skill or education makes $17 per hour.  If the same wage could be made flipping burgers at micky D's or somewhere like that, then that job that the person works at would be warranted a pay raise, because after all, the skills/knowledge of the position is higher than the skills/knowledge required to flip burgers.  There would most certainly have to be an incentive to get these higher skilled workers.  So say you raise their pay to $25 per hour.

 

Again, the same thing happens.  Those people that currently earn $25 per hour because perhaps their skill and/or education/experience is higher than the people that just got a raise to $25 per hour.  The same scenario happens again.  You need to raise their pay, and the cycle continues.

 

Along with the rising salaries you need to also look at the price of goods/services.  Prices will rise, and even though more people have "more money", they still will only be able to afford what they can now.  This is basically what is called Inflation.

 

Raising the minimum wage will do more to de-value the dollar.

Well I agree to the principle of your post, but I can't see any industry being understaffed...I agree that people would want to get paid for doing the easy jobs for the same pay as tech/construction et.al jobs, but in the end, people have to work...The "easy" jobs would be filled and someone would have to fill the other jobs...As I said people have to work and would take the other jobs...

 

Inflation will always be present

 

I understand the "trickle up" effect and in principle I agree, however as I said people have to work and won't refuse work when the bills start piling up and they get hungry...

 

I agree also that some jobs demand more money simply due to the nature of the work, my illustration was a hypothetical based on an flat rate pay scale for every industry

---