Raising minimum wage VS lowering the Cost of living. Which is more beneficial long term? (Part 1.)

Let me start off my saying thins is gonna be a long one. A 2 part one at that. 😘Please bare with me I took some time digging up different sources, in which I will be siting. I put screen shots but it turns its quite a few pix 😳😓😬. I was trying to gather as much info as possible

As we all have seen, there has been plenty of discussion on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The problem with that is, when it cost companies more to employ, in turn they have to raise the prices of their product or services to make up for the difference in wages and company spending. That reason alone (for me) is enough to conclude that a spike in wages is not the best solution to end such high rates of poverty. While I believe everyone has the RIGHT to be able to comfortably afford living expenses, I don't believe raising the minimum wage to $15hr is going to be effective long term, or for a wider demographic for that matter.

I'm not sure if any of you have seen my comments on these topics, but I usually lean more towards lowering the cost of living instead of increasing wages. I have also commented about how flawed our welfare/state assistance programs are (in the states, California specifically). With that said, I thought I would create a topic (which is rarely seen here) about this side of "the ending poverty" solution.

⚠️ some of the sources sited uses some commentary I don't really agree with, I don't feel calling people names is the best way to make a point, however the author does make some pretty solid points in solving this economic crisis⚠️

I decided to attach the editors note to this article. ( http://californiapolicycenter.org/lowering-the-cost-of-living-is-better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage/ ) just made it easier as I'm using my cell phone

.

😒Told u.. "socialist fools" was completely irrelevant, however the point he made I feel is valid)

The article goes on to explain his views, starting with the government assistance programs. While he acknowledges they are designed to help people, and there's no issue with that, the problem is, (siting the article)

"In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. People are not stupid, While it’s beneficial to have a job, assuming there is hope of advancement, for those with no special skills there is little to no hope of advancement.

Moreover, wages are taxed, welfare benefits are not. And what about day-care costs for single mothers? What about transportation costs? What about the value of extra leisure time? Add it all up and it makes perfect sense for many to remain on welfare for as long as they can." Shedlock then proceeds to explain what he considers to be "the minimum wage fallacy", and how it's not surprising given the assistance programs exceeding minimum wage, how socialist are fighting for raising minimum wage, quoting a Seattle campaign to raise it to $15hr. Even questioning how successful it may but e

On a previous post of mine ( $15hr or "robot replacement") I site another article aired on tv on Labor Day, about Bill Gates "robot tax" which essentially is supposed to slow the production of artificial workers, by taking corporations and using that money, to put towards employees that may need to seek higher education, or further job training otherwise be out of a job, up to a $50k annual income worth. But the argument there is even after "robots take over the work force" what about future generations that may not be able to afford higher education. Then what? Anyway, I'm not going to get into detail about that since I already posted it, back to this topic.

"Are low wages the problem? Perceived low wages are a symptom of the problem, not the problem.place the blame where it precisely belongs: on central bankers, on fractional reserve lending, and on government bureaucrats who interfere in the free market. We do not need higher wages, we need lower prices. With productivity advancements we would have just that " (again edited version)

Where that article leaves off at productivity advancements, I found another article about a proposed action in Philadelphia that very well could be a solution. This is where I'm going to leave off, and thank anyone who reads this for taking the time to.

( below article, https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/08/poverty-reduction-cost-of-living-center-for-neighborhood-technology/494348/)

I would love to hear everyone's opinion.. again thanks for taking the time to read it I know it's a lot