We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's not experimenting. It's politics, not economics. In the New York greater metro area, very few work for minimum wage anyway although I am sure many, especially new immigrants, would be willing to. Still, as every working person knows, the true minimum wage is zero.
It's not even politics. It's people's lives.
If it was just about politics and power, that's one thing. Political personalities jockeying for power is entertainment, as long as it doesn't impact people's livelihoods.
But they do impact incomes, because it's not just jockeying for power - it's the creation of slave voters who rely on the machine for their welfare.
It's not even charity.
Since when is government a charity?
It's a forced redistribution of income on the presumption that everyone who pays into it is OK with some unknown bureaucrat(s) dividing it up among anyone they deem 'worthy' of receiving it.
We don't vote on these bureaucrats or their criteria, and we don't give the money voluntarily like we do in a charity.
If I give money to help the homeless, I make sure the charity I'm giving it to does what they say with it. They don't usually pay many people in their organization, a higher percentage of my money reaches its presumed destination.
The difference between minimum wage and welfare is the time frame. wage is per hour and welfare is per month. The calculation is the same --- do I make more or less than welfare? If bleeding hearts were serious about a living wage, they would buck welfare up their proposed living wage. Employers would have to match it to find workers.
“And in volume 2, page 33, speaking of New Zealand, " wages in the colony fell generally between 1879 and 1895. In 1889 the minimum amount of wages to be paid in industries was fixed by law. As a result the old and slow workers in the clothing and underclothing trades were all discharged and starved or became paupers," (vol. 2, page 64). ”
The references in the preceding is to: “ State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand,” written by William P. Reeves
--“Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson
Well, these days we don't let them starve completely but those in government love making paupers.