An economist would say that the minimum wage isn’t all bad or all good. it’s a little of both. present an argument (one paragraph or more) for either keeping or abolishing the minimum wage. back up your position with economic reasoning.

The minimum wage is the lowest legal wage companies can pay workers. The purpose of minimum wage laws is to stop employers from exploiting desperate workers. The minimum wage should provide enough income to afford a living wage. That is the amount needed to provide enough food, clothing, and shelter.

Some economists argue that the minimum wage should be kept because of it advantages to the economy and the workers. First, workers will be able to cover the cost of living. Therefore, they are more productive if they have a decent standard of living. Second, it reduces income inequality while providing an incentive to work. The incentive makes it better for society than welfare or a universal basic income.  Third, a minimum wage spurs economic growth. It gives workers more money to spend. This increases demand and business revenue. Fourth, workers who have more time and money can then invest in their education. This further increases their productivity. A more educated workforce increases innovation and the number of small businesses. Fifth, minimum wage laws benefit individual businesses. Workers are less likely to leave to find a higher-paying job.  

On the other hand, some economists argue that the minimum wage should be abolished because it raises business labor costs. That's already the largest budget item for most of them. When the government forces them to pay more per worker, they hire fewer workers to keep the total labor costs the same. This increases the unemployment rate. As well,  a minimum wage penalizes companies that are labor-intensive. By default, this rewards those that are in capital-intensive industries. Over time, this can shift the very fabric of the country's economic base. As well, minimum wage laws may increase job outsourcing. Companies move their facilities to countries where labor costs are lower.

answer; proximity;

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.