President Roosevelt<span> signed the resolution</span>
This seems to be an opinion based question, I will provide you with both a yes and no response with arguments to support it and you can choose which one best suites your beliefs:
Yes, the benefits of raising the minimum wage outweigh the drawbacks. By raising the minimum wage you increase the quality of life for workers. Many full time workers are unable to afford housing or groceries in this economy on the minimum wage. At $7.25/hour and 40hrs/week is $290 before taxes. This is not enough income to cover the basic costs of living in most places. If people earned more money they would have more money to spend and corporations would profit from an increase in sales. Also, workers wouldn't have to depend so much on government services such as food stamps and section 8 housing assistance because they would be able to support their families with their own income. This would free up funds for government to provide more for the school systems, better healthcare and/or infrastructure.
No, the benefits of an increased minimum wage would not outweigh the drawbacks. The drawbacks of a higher minimum wage are significant because they most directly effect small business owners. The "mom and pop shop" owners depend on paying low salaries in order to keep their doors open. If they were forced to increase their pay rates, by what many minimum wage supporters suggest: more than double, they would not be able to afford employees to keep their doors open. Also, government agencies would be forced to pay their low-level workers as much as $15/hr which could become a tax burden on the citizens who pay for the salaries of all government employees. Raising the minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy because small companies and the government could not afford to support the salaries and benefits of their workers.
Answer:
IMF is an organization of 190 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation.
The efforts of senators and representatives to seek federally funded projects, grants, and contracts that primarily benefit the constituencies of a single district or state are commonly referred to as Pork barrel legislation.
Instances of Pork Barrel Governmental issues
Pork barrel burning through, and the convergence of cash and governmental issues stretch out back over 100 years in U.S. governmental issues. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, exchanged Nationwide conflict agreements to northern money managers in return for support occupations and mission support. On a more nearby level, the mid twentieth century New York government was overwhelmed by Tammany Lobby, a political association that as often as possible bargained government contracts for political power. Unbelievable instances of political reserves alert against pork barrel legislative issues, including a portion of the accompanying models.
- Gold country's Scaffold to No place
- Boston's Large Dig
Assuming that you've at any point seen political spine chillers, you'll rush to accept that legislative issues is a grimy game. In the imaginary world, lawmakers are much of the time degenerate people driven by ravenousness and individual addition, accepting kickbacks and trading Favors for the help of lobbyists and other significant powerhouses. Yet, that isn't true in reality, right? There are situations where cash, power, and political help abrogate the long-term benefit of all. One of these is known as pork barrel legislative issues.
Learn more about Pork Barrel Governmental issues here:
brainly.com/question/13648019
#SPJ4
