So the negative effects aren't much. If Trump's program wasn't going to harm the poor 'much', would that be good?
The sentence preceeding the above:
"The worry is that unemployment would rise as low-skilled jobs would become untenable. Indeed, that seems to have happened recently in America [[see
article)."
If you read the 'article' referenced:
"then the new paper supports what sceptics have said all along: that higher minimum wages, by threatening the viability of some firms, dent employment opportunities for the low-skilled. That should be food for thought."
We can both find quotations to support our existing POV.
Job losses for youth is not a good feature.
So just keep adding more programs. Just 'invest'. No.
Your modest reduction is someone's job loss.
So glad you have the answer for them. There's nothing stopping anyone from being a camp counselor right now. Do you really have to destroy their job.
Fewer jobs for teens is a feature? We all want to justify our positions -- but at some point we ignore common sense.
It makes no sense to have a MW when the result is youth unemployment. Fewer jobs for urban kids is not a good thing.
Sorry to be driving you nuts. That MW kills jobs is pretty much accepted right and left. The left is OK with some job loss, seeing benefit in wages. The right sees job losses as bad, and doesn't believe the benefits.
Most of the debate today is over how many jobs being lost is acceptable for the benefit of more wages for others.