Minimum Wage Debate

A minimum wage is considered as the lowest compensation that employers may legally pay to employees. Similarly, employees may not sell their labor below the price floor. A price floor is a legal minimum in which the government does not facilitate the price of a good or service to decrease below the floor. The minimum wage has gained impetus among policy makers as a method to lessen rising wage as well as inequality of income. However, higher minimum wage or increasing price floor on the price of labor leads to job loss and probable magnitude of those losses. It has been predicted by the standard model of competitive labor markets that higher minimum wage is likely to lead to loss of job among low-skilled employees (Meer and West 2015).

Legislators often think that putting more money in the pockets of the poor is likely to help their families. However, legislation will not rescind the laws of economics. According to research, mandated hikes in wages imposes real costs of economics and these costs are principally borne by the very individual legislators are trying to help. However, it leads to an unfortunate attempt to increase minimum wages as it depends mostly on emotion rather than economic reality. Cohorts mostly depict the typical minimum wage earner as a solo parent who is struggling to place food on the table. A vast majority of individuals started their life with a minimum wage job. It provided entry to the market in order to gain helpful skills as well as knowledge that facilitated them to move up the ladder. However, it consists of a small subsection of the labor force. According to Card and Krueger (2016), putting more money in the pockets of the poor did not help the poor however; it cost them their jobs. The higher minimum wage also had a negative impact on the minority employment mostly due to differences in level of skills and

The unintended as well as undesirable consequences of endeavors to implement rent control and minimum wages are mostly uncomplicated. Rent control discloses the door to inequity due to potential tenants that cannot compete with each other by providing larger rent for an apartment. In a market that is left to its personal policies, everybody who desires an apartment at the market price gets one, and everybody who is enthusiastic to rent out an apartment at the market price gets a tenant. On the other hand, under a free and competitive market, a prejudiced property owner would have to pay for his prejudice in the form of subordinate profits. According to rent control wage law, individuals get access to lower-quality rental housing. However, property owners have weaker incentives to be conscientious about maintenance. With price-control, individuals will be able to adjust the quality of the commodities as well as services that they are purchasing and selling. Employees have to pay for foods as well as employers that are used to offer. The rent control is considered as an effectual as well as counterproductive policy of housing. However, the law of rent control ignores the basic laws of economics that are associated with markets for housing (Kim