Bernie wants you to be dependent on 'Govt.'

I'm waiting for Bernie to 'take off the gloves'

Makes about as much sense as minimum wage

IF the minimum wage was $15/hr., WHY would they pay any more than that?
** Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr will NOT raise the wages of people who are ALREADY making more than $15/hr -- and, in fact, it my stifle raises for those people, because a company would be FORCED to pay the untrained novice more than they may be worth to them....
** IF minumum wage would actually 'work', than why not raise it to $50/hr, so that everyone would be 'permanently' lifted out of poverty? The answer should be obvious.

They would pay the market value for the job. Pay too little and no qualified people will apply or stay after getting experience. But at least unskilled people would get hands on experience that they can use to get a better job.

And when people can’t live on the wage, they work their way up to a career that does pay a living wage. Not because government forced busnusses to pay it, but because sinesses value the work of the employee enough to pay enough to keep them from moving to a better paying job.
If employees were not allowed to move on to other jobs, then minimum wage migh make sense.

That'd nonsense. If a paramedic could just as easily stack shelves at Costco for the same amount of money, wages can go up or they can face a huge labor shortage - simple choice.

YES a company 'could' offer anything they want -- but if it's too low, they wouldn't be able to get anyone at all... Let's do another example: Do you think a hospital could find a fully-licensed M.D. to work for $15 an hour? And, do you think that if there were absolutely no minimum wage at all, the M.D. would get paid much, if any, less than they already are?

I strongly suggest taking a couple courses in economics.
** Think through these 2 questions, and answer:
Why not just FORCE the pay for the 'burger-flipper' to be the SAME as the M.D., since it 'would' end the poverty of the burger-flipper (and the fruit-pickers, etc.), while still allowing the M.D. to be 'just as rich' as before'?
What's wrong with that?
Would there be any unanticipated consequences?
If you think not, then I say Bernie is thinking too small! He should be going for the $50/hr minimum wage!

Now, you're thinking! Yes, it would be absurd.... But, WHO gets to be 'in-charge' of 'deciding' exactly how much one worker should get versus another worker? (oh, and btw, the FIRST thing that such people ('in-charge' of determining pay) will do is make sure they THEMSELVES get more pay than others!)... What person or group of people should be allowed that king-like power?
It's further complicated, because some doctors are surgeons, and some are 'just' physicians; surgeons can often 'demand' $400,000; better surgeons can demand $800,000; the very best can demand over $1,000,000.
The same thing can be said for professional athletes, actors, and musicians:
A minor league player might only get paid $30k, while a top-notich major league player gets millions.
An unknown professional writer might only get a $20,000 for book contract, while an ex-President might get a $45 MILLION contract.
A burger-flipper that wants to stay a burger-flipper forever is a pretty said example of lack of ambition. Also, a burger-flipper demanding $20/hr may accelerate the (above-pictured) type of 'modification' by the employer, whether we like it or not (in the future, even surgeons, athletes, and actors, may face a similar fate).

your argument seems extremely one-sided.

economics isn't my strong suit.i know enough to be dangerous,but that is about it.

but your argument seems,to me anyways,so "top-down".

as I was reading your comments all I could think of was a
Dickensian dystopia,"please kind corporation,can I have some more"?

like,let's take your touch screen kiosk.
now these have been installed and been in use in the Scandinavian countries for 15 years.the main reason is one you mentioned:their workers get paid $22 hr.

why didn't corporate americe do that?
because it was cheaper to have a warm body.
the "labor" was cheaper than investiing the 30+ grand to install and maintain a touchscreen kiosk.

then the counter argument is that if we pay cheap labor MORE,then everything would rise in cost,and we would have massive inflation.(inflation can be in issue,not ignoring that).

well,let's look at the Scandinavian country and how much more is a whooper than the states?
.14% more per avg pos check.
seattle raised the minimum wage,and many predicted it would fall into the pacific.
the hysteria was pretty comical.
let's look at seattle….yup..still there.the predicted apocalypse never happened,and while some industries did suffer,others flourished,but all the indicators predict the seattles economy taken in aggregate is seeing the largest growth in decades.

the problem with a top-down approach to labor and wages,ignores that when people have more money...they spend it,and they tend to spend it within their own community.

the only thing higher minimum wage threatens is coporate profits and shareholders,which have been consistently rising for 10 years,they have been raking in the loot.

while the worker wage has stagnated.

so if you think the economy is solely wall street and finance.
then you are having a good time.

but by doing that,you ignore half of this country who are the working poor.

we tried top down since the 80's,and it was a reaction to the previous years where labor had a stranglehold of investors,banks and corporations.so I am not suggesting we go back to those days.

let people make their money,get rich you glorious bastard!
but let's not delude ourselves that neo-liberal "top down" trickle economic capitalism works.

it doesn't.

meh..what do I know..
just my .02

Ah, too much to address for the time that I have at this second...

I would have to assume, since you seem stuck on MINIMUM wage, that you only make minimum wage, or make less then what it would be raised to? Is that your goal?

**** It is THIS that I contend is the ruse: 'socialists' (pre-communists) such as Bernie, are trying to fixate people on a BOTTOM, when they should be focused on how much more opportunity they can provide people to rise to their TOP...
The LEAST money that people can be paid should not be the main concern or goal; they should be concerned with how high they can help people advance themselves to!

As far as 'trickle down' economics (btw, this is a term 'coined' for a derrogatory purpose; not some sort of 'official' intention): Remember there is also 'trickle down taxation' and/or hidden REGRESSIVE taxation; anything that ends up raising prices on goods and services, will disproportionately hurt poor and middle-class (btw, which I am one of).

It sounds great to force some people or entities to pay other people more, or to force some people to forfeit money to 'the Govt' -- BUT there are ALWAYS consequences to any action: many are unintended; however many ARE intended, but not intended to be obvious.,,,
** These politicians KNOW WELL, that if they massively raise taxes on rich and corporations, that those tax costs WILL BE PASSED DOWN to the middle-class and poor. The businesses and rich will NOT simply 'absorb' the tax costs; they will DEFER those costs the only way they can: raise prices for goods and services; and/or cut employment costs (less hiring, less raises, less hours, less employees, higher workload)....

For a somewhat related example, say 'the Govt decided' to DOUBLE the cost of fuel (gasoline, diesel, heating oil and gas, generated electricity) -- by adding a 'surcharge' tax to 'pay for global warming (or climate change, whatever it's termed as this month).
A rich guy himself (of which, many are 'liberals' btw), wouldn't really be affected much by a doubled fuel price -- he has plenty of money.
But the middle-class guy, will be GREATLY affected (if he spent just $150/wk on fuel and generated electricity -- he will then have to spend $300/wk), and that's just the fuel itself... If you add-in increased costs of everything else that depends on fuel (which is pretty much everything), the poor and middle-class would effectively been burdened -- disproportionately -- with hidden REGRESSIVE taxation.

but it appears you are a Milton friedman kinda guy.

I am not,for many reasons.

i subscribe more to political economy than the classical economists.
maybe cuz they get it f**king wrong everytime.

and all i am suggesting is a balance between the owner class,and labor.
i am not anti-capitalist.

i am against gross exploitation,and when you have a glut of labor?
there is going to be exploitation.

but i get it.
it is complicated,and there are no easy answers.

thank god i am semi-retired,and can borrow against my portfolio,and pay practically nothing in taxes.

America,what a country eh?