In Stenland, many workers have been complaining that they cannot survive on minimum wage, the lowest wage an employer is permitted to pay. The government is proposing to raise the minimum wage. Many employers who pay their workers the current minimum wage argue that if it is raised, unemployment will increase because they will no longer be able to afford to employ as many workers.
Which of the following, if true in Stenland, most strongly supports the claim that raising the minimum wage there will not have the effects that the employers predict?
Crux of the Question --
Raising the minimum wage will not lead to increase in unemployment.A) For any position with wages below a living wage, the difficulty of finding and retaining employees adds as much to employment costs as would raising wages.The difficulty of finding and retaining employees
adds as much to
employment costs as raising the minimum wage so it supports the conclusion that raising the minimum wage there will not have the effects that the employers predict.
B) Raising the minimum wage does not also increase the amount employers have to contribute in employee benefits.As per the argument, Raising the minimum wage --> Increase in Unemployment.
Are we really concerned with what else will
simultaneously increase/decrease with the increase of minimum wage??
As per the argument we just know that raising the minimum wage will lead to an increase in unemployment. Raise in Minimum wage itself is causing employers to say that they will no longer be able to
afford to employ as many workers. Anything in addition/extra thus, does not really matter.
Even if the amount employers have to contribute in employee benefits increases, it worsens the scenario. It acts as an addon to the problem of unemployment which is mentioned in the argument. Analogy, if I cannot afford a 5$ lead pencil, knowing that along with the purchase of a 5$ pencil, I do not need to pay for 2$ lead for after usage, makes the argument stand as it is.
The other case, if the amount employers have to contribute in employee benefits does not increase the amount employers have to contribute in employee benefits - it means the amount could be same or it decrease. But knowing this information does really matter?? No, Right? Because anyways, the minimum wage is still increased, so the argument stands as it is.
C) When inflation is taken into account, the proposed new minimum wage is not high as the current one was when it was introduced.Okay.. But so what? Do we really need to take inflation into account? Is the argument concerned about inflation?? Argument is just concerned with the fact that minimum wage would be increased, and whether after considering any other factor makes that cost seem less, that does not really matter because anyways, as a whole, the minimum wage is still increased, so the argument stands as it is.
D) Many employees currently being paid wages at the level of the proposed new minimum wage will demand significant wage increases.so what? are we concerned with those employees, who are currently being paid wages at the level of the proposed new minimum wage, and their demands.. No, right? So, irrelevant.
ALso, just demanding does not mean that their demands will be fulfilled. So, it adds nothing to the existing stimulus.
E) Many employers who pay some workers only the minimum wage also pay other workers wages that are much higher than the minimum.Definitely that's true. But we are not concerned with those workers. Our argument is basically concerned with increase in minimum wage. Not with the proportion of wages compared with the minimum paid workers. So, irrelevant.
Options D and E are totally irrelevant and could be quickly eliminated.