min wage $10.10??
First of all, you raise the minimum wager and all prices go up. Most minimum wager jobs, are in some sort of retail. If you raise the the amount employees must be paid, the cost of goods, whether fast food, or groceries MUST increase to cover this. So it is in effect just another tax on the rest of us.
Secondly, this is totally unnecessary as this problem is already addressed. Low income workers get all there federal tax money withheld back at the end of the year. I mean not only are they paying no taxes, but the Earned Income Credit provides most of them with a refund many times what they paid in. If you are a lower income worker, which I suspect most here are not, you get a huge refund check, usually thousands of dollars in the spring of each year. You see the lower income folks run out and buy new 'toys'. lol And that's ok with me. As a liberal, I am not against a bit of redistribution, where low income pay less or nothing and get a little assistance. I am just saying this issue is already addressed. We don't need to put another tax on the rest of us.
I mean, if the end result is prices go up (inflation), I am fortunate enough at this point in my life, it will just be an annoyance. But what about the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes. Their Minimum wage will not be going up, but the cost of goods to cover this extra tax still will. They are the ones that will be crushed.
And lastly, lets just admit it. Some jobs and some of these workers half-assed doing these jobs are not worth $10 an hour. So on this issue, my republican side is emerging.....let the market place dictate the wage.
"The market" isn't deciding the wage scale at the lower end, the government is. Specifically, the ability of employers to direct their employees to food stamps and other public benefits. This simply means that the entire country is paying for the cheaper goods afforded by cheap wages instead of just those who buy those goods.
Why are we fixated on making every job a type of job where people must be able to raise a family from. Does the local ice cream shop have to pay enough for the young girl to raise a family as she scoops ice cream.
Its just a form of welfare where the govt doesnt have to pay out the mmoney. Just like the new healthcare system will be paid for by the people with insurance as the govt enforces rules that will be costly to the insurance companes. Again the govt is providing a service for people without spending money.
Quote: kewljLet me preface by saying that I lean liberal on most issues. But listening to the president's SOTU address and his comments again this morning, I hate this idea of raising minimum wager.
First of all, you raise the minimum wager and all prices go up. Most minimum wager jobs, are in some sort of retail. If you raise the the amount employees must be paid, the cost of goods, whether fast food, or groceries MUST increase to cover this. So it is in effect just another tax on the rest of us.
Secondly, this is totally unnecessary as this problem is already addressed. Low income workers get all there federal tax money withheld back at the end of the year. I mean not only are they paying no taxes, but the Earned Income Credit provides most of them with a refund many times what they paid in. If you are a lower income worker, which I suspect most here are not, you get a huge refund check, usually thousands of dollars in the spring of each year. You see the lower income folks run out and buy new 'toys'. lol And that's ok with me. As a liberal, I am not against a bit of redistribution, where low income pay less or nothing and get a little assistance. I am just saying this issue is already addressed. We don't need to put another tax on the rest of us.
I mean, if the end result is prices go up (inflation), I am fortunate enough at this point in my life, it will just be an annoyance. But what about the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes. Their Minimum wage will not be going up, but the cost of goods to cover this extra tax still will. They are the ones that will be crushed.
And lastly, lets just admit it. Some jobs and some of these workers half-assed doing these jobs are not worth $10 an hour. So on this issue, my republican side is emerging.....let the market place dictate the wage.
Agreed. The job of government is to create an environment of full employment where competition for labor makes any discussion of minimum wage purely academic.
Quote: Sabretom2The job of government is to create an environment of full employment where competition for labor makes any discussion of minimum wage purely academic.
That assumes there will always need to be an economy that requires full employment. I don't think that's the future of humanity.
Imagine a future where hyperproductivity is the norm and demand can be met via the production of only a small percentage of the potential workforce. One such scenario involves a surrogate workforce, say an army of robots. Ignore the Terminator/singularity scenarios for now and assume that we've just created efficient work tools instead of AI overlords. The point is, most people aren't working because there aren't any jobs that need doing by those people. Farms are managed by a few people and a bunch of robotic harvesters. McDonalds and all other fast food restaurants use robotic burger flippers, or just giant machines built to produce what you want. Or maybe someone invented the replicator from Star Trek.
Regardless, the scenario is this: one of the fundamental bases of our economy, the scarcity of labor, is gone.
What is the job of government then?
And in the meantime? If your job is, say, to make a world where everybody is healthy, does it make sense to go for it by making people more ill and say "this will create more doctors and the question of health should be an academic concern"?Quote: Sabretom2Agreed. The job of government is to create an environment of full employment where competition for labor makes any discussion of minimum wage purely academic.
What the President is saying is, precisely, that it is NOT academic at the present time!
The job of government is that there are no poor.
Quote: MathExtremist
Regardless, the scenario is this: one of the fundamental bases of our economy, the scarcity of labor, is gone.
What is the job of government then?
Entertainment. Lol
Quote: kubikulannAnd in the meantime? If your job is, say, to make a world where everybody is healthy, does it make sense to go for it by making people more ill and say "this will create more doctors and the question of health should be an academic concern"?
What the President is saying is, precisely, that it is NOT academic at the present time!
The job of government is that there are no poor.
The job of government is to see that everybody has an equal chance of not being poor, not to guarantee there are no poor.
Whether it does that or not is an entirely different matter.
Quote: kewljAs a liberal, I .... am just saying this issue is already addressed. We don't need to put another tax on the rest of us.
Uh, did the self-proclaimed liberal just say he was Taxed Enough Already? Where have I heard that before?
;-)
Quote: kubikulannAnd in the meantime? If your job is, say, to make a world where everybody is healthy, does it make sense to go for it by making people more ill and say "this will create more doctors and the question of health should be an academic concern"?
What the President is saying is, precisely, that it is NOT academic at the present time!
The job of government is that there are no poor.
What? Name one.
Quote: MathExtremistThat assumes there will always need to be an economy that requires full employment. I don't think that's the future of humanity.
Imagine a future where hyperproductivity is the norm and demand can be met via the production of only a small percentage of the potential workforce. One such scenario involves a surrogate workforce, say an army of robots. Ignore the Terminator/singularity scenarios for now and assume that we've just created efficient work tools instead of AI overlords. The point is, most people aren't working because there aren't any jobs that need doing by those people. Farms are managed by a few people and a bunch of robotic harvesters. McDonalds and all other fast food restaurants use robotic burger flippers, or just giant machines built to produce what you want. Or maybe someone invented the replicator from Star Trek.
Regardless, the scenario is this: one of the fundamental bases of our economy, the scarcity of labor, is gone.
What is the job of government then?
I agree. My preference is to get rid of the minimum wage and start a basic income guarantee (which also replaces all other assistance programs). I think this lays the groundwork better for the future, but also straightens out the incentive curve at the bottom, in the present. I keep hearing that welfare recipients average $30k/yr, and I wonder why anyone works for minimum wage. Give _everyone_ $10, or $12k/yr, and let them know that the first dollar they make won't effect their benefits. The truely useless people can live marginal lives, w/o worrying about things like reliable transportation, until AI/robots enable them to do otherwise.
There are drawbacks, such as, the presently affordable level not satisfying the left, politicians not wantting to give up their strings(bureaucracies dedicated to who "needs" help), and then, whatever unintended consequences you can imagine as there are always some.
But the OP had some interesting points.
My view has always been that someone working full time (1,944 hours a year) should have enough money to support him/herself and ONE dependent, be it a single mother with a child. And that two parents working full time can afford to support a family of 4.
I also think that if you are working, you shouldn't qualify for government benefits. In otherwords, you shouldn't get a tax return, food stamps, SNAP, or any other government benefits (besides paying ZERO taxes) based on making minimum wage for a full year. The only exception might be health insurance.
I also think that if you not working, you should be forced to try to find work and be on government funded work programs and government funded "return to work" programs (which most income programs provide).
That would require the following:
(1) Raising the minimum wage to $12/hour (excluding occupations where tipping is the main source of income) which, working full time, gets them above the food stamp threshold of $20,172 and well above the poverty line. Gradually put it in over 4 years.
(2) Reducing corporate taxes and business taxes to compensate for the amounts they are paying out in minimum wage. Perhaps a drop from 35% to 25% would cover the difference but I am incapable of making that analysis. Provide greater incentives to small business.
(3) Increase the welfare gap so that it's worthwhile to work. Provide a welfare program that provides a housing allowance, food stamps, and medical care. A $5 - $6 difference between the worth of welfare and minimum wage might accomplish that gap.
(4) Simplify government programs so that the level of regulation and overhead is minimized.
Quote: boymimbo(4) Simplify government programs so that the level of regulation and overhead is minimized.
Quote: boymimbo
(2) Reducing corporate taxes and business taxes to compensate for the amounts they are paying out in minimum wage. Perhaps a drop from 35% to 25% would cover the difference but I am incapable of making that analysis. Provide greater incentives to small business.
This would be all rainbows and unicorns except that all other prices will increase to pay for the increase and those at the bottom will still be at the bottom but with fewer jobs for them to find. A POTUS with real leadership would say, "You want a raise? Go get some skills so you can get one, quit asking me to make your boss give you one."
As an alternative we could have an optional liberal surcharge. Those who support a minimum wage increase could pay $2-4 more for items they buy and the total chopped among the minimum and near minimum wage earners at that business.
I wonder how many liberals would pay it?
+1Quote: wudgedThe job of government is to see that everybody has an equal chance of not being poor, not to guarantee there are no poor.
It is up to the individual to make sure that he's not poor.
Quote: MathExtremistThat assumes there will always need to be an economy that requires full employment. I don't think that's the future of humanity.
Imagine a future where hyperproductivity is the norm and demand can be met via the production of only a small percentage of the potential workforce. One such scenario involves a surrogate workforce, say an army of robots. Ignore the Terminator/singularity scenarios for now and assume that we've just created efficient work tools instead of AI overlords. The point is, most people aren't working because there aren't any jobs that need doing by those people. Farms are managed by a few people and a bunch of robotic harvesters. McDonalds and all other fast food restaurants use robotic burger flippers, or just giant machines built to produce what you want. Or maybe someone invented the replicator from Star Trek.
Regardless, the scenario is this: one of the fundamental bases of our economy, the scarcity of labor, is gone.
What is the job of government then?
I have read this futturistic secnario somehwere else as well. I completely disagree that this how the future will play out.
Like in the past the workforce shifted from Agricultular to manyfacturing and then to services, the same will apply in the future.
Maybe all the jobs currently done by humans will be done by robots, AI etc.
But new one's will be created that only humans can do.
Starting from the older profession (which even that might be duplicated by robots) but some customers might still want the real thing.
To creative jobs, arts, music books To sports.
To say a restaurant waiter where there could be robots but some customers prefer to be serviced by a human, so work is created form him and they have to have work so that they can afford to pay for that specific preference they have.
It is the human nature that would ensure that there will always be work needed to be done by humans.
That everything (or almost everything) will be done by robots and AI and humans will be in some time in the future be in pepertual vacations is not going to happen ever.
So far they have done the following in the last 2 weeks
1-let 475 people go
2-eliminated 700 vacant positions
3- took away health benefits from part time workers.
Quote: LarrySShould a guy I pay to put flyers on car windshields be able to raise a family from the wages.
So YOU'RE the one! Stop that. Immediately. Pet peeve of mine, worst form of advertising EVER. Only half kidding....
Quote: beachbumbabsSo YOU'RE the one! Stop that. Immediately. Pet peeve of mine, worst form of advertising EVER. Only half kidding....
me too...i agree....and I am not kidding.... actually the worst for of advertising is when someone puts a flyer in the crack of your home door, or hangs it on the doorknob.
a great advertisement that no one is home when you go on vacation
Quote: LarrySme too...i agree....and I am not kidding.... actually the worst for of advertising is when someone puts a flyer in the crack of your home door, or hangs it on the doorknob.
a great advertisement that no one is home when you go on vacation
When I was in pest control they started a flier program which was the biggest joke of that year. It started by saying we had to flier like 25 places between calls. The upper management was relentless at tracking things and wanted results. Results, real or not, came in and within a week we were to put 100 a day out. They said we should get 1 lead from them and thus 2-3 more sales a week.
Well, it all became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I put out hundreds over the season but not per day. Every spring even after I was promoted I had my people put them out because "we had to work the program." In all those years I got ONE reply card in the mail. Eventually I told one of my more reasonable supervisors how crappy the results were. He insisted "it works on Long Island!"
They were all about "creative selling" but I doubt 1/4 of what people called "creative" really was, the rest were leads that were never logged.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen I was in pest control they started a flier program which was the biggest joke of that year. It started by saying we had to flier like 25 places between calls. The upper management was relentless at tracking things and wanted results. Results, real or not, came in and within a week we were to put 100 a day out. They said we should get 1 lead from them and thus 2-3 more sales a week.
Well, it all became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I put out hundreds over the season but not per day. Every spring even after I was promoted I had my people put them out because "we had to work the program." In all those years I got ONE reply card in the mail. Eventually I told one of my more reasonable supervisors how crappy the results were. He insisted "it works on Long Island!"
They were all about "creative selling" but I doubt 1/4 of what people called "creative" really was, the rest were leads that were never logged.
When I delivered pizzas the manager at my store had a similar deal. We were supposed to mark a coupon sheet with our initials and sticker them to the neighbors' doors. Whoever had the most coupons redeemed with their initials on them was supposed to win a prize - I don't remember if it was weekly or monthly.
In any case, after the first prize time came around, there was no mention of it. I asked the manager and she said it wasn't fair, but wouldn't explain why. I presume I blew everybody out of the water because every coupon a customer would give me (or even when they didn't give me one) I would pull out a blank sheet, write my initials on it and turn it in.
Quote: wudgedWhen I delivered pizzas the manager at my store had a similar deal. We were supposed to mark a coupon sheet with our initials and sticker them to the neighbors' doors. Whoever had the most coupons redeemed with their initials on them was supposed to win a prize - I don't remember if it was weekly or monthly.
In any case, after the first prize time came around, there was no mention of it. I asked the manager and she said it wasn't fair, but wouldn't explain why. I presume I blew everybody out of the water because every coupon a customer would give me (or even when they didn't give me one) I would pull out a blank sheet, write my initials on it and turn it in.
Ha ha, looks like you got backed off.
Quote: wudged
In any case, after the first prize time came around, there was no mention of it. I asked the manager and she said it wasn't fair, but wouldn't explain why. I presume I blew everybody out of the water because every coupon a customer would give me (or even when they didn't give me one) I would pull out a blank sheet, write my initials on it and turn it in.
Always amazes me when management never sees such things coming a mile away.
Quote: kewljAnd lastly, lets just admit it. Some jobs and some of these workers half-assed doing these jobs are not worth $10 an hour. So on this issue, my republican side is emerging.....let the market place dictate the wage.
The market always sets the wage. Always.
If government decrees an hourly payment that's worth more than the service rendered, such jobs will vanish. Or such wages will not be paid. That is, either most employers will find a substitute or a loophole.
Minnimum wage jobs are largely unskilled or low-skilled. The supply for such jobs is huge, after all pretty much anyone can do them. Furhter, productivity gains in such jobs are limited. Therefore what most employers will do is either replace jobs with machines, when possible, consolidate several jobs into fewer or even just one (having 3 janitors insteas of five, for example), dump some jobs into existing employers with higher wages (for instance getting the secretary to distribute handbills on his way to work), or find some loophole allowing a lower wage (there are always loopholes to be found; think internships, for instance in this case).
There's no way around it. Even in totalitarian communist dictatorships, the market wound up allocating resources. That is to say, the resources and labor followed the incentives.
Quote: DocUh, did the self-proclaimed liberal just say he was Taxed Enough Already? Where have I heard that before?
;-)
Very good Doc. You got me.
Now I know you were just poking fun at me, but you really have stumbled onto the short-comings of the so called Tea party. The Tea Party movement was originally supposed to be a coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independents, brought together by the issue of government that was too large and subsequently taxes too high.
Unfortunately early on in the process, the Tea party was 'hijacked' by the far right wing of the Republican party. The same folks that had previous labels of Christian Coalition or Religious Right. They took over the Tea Party and instilled far right social value, such as anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion and anti birth control. These types of values were NOT what the Tea party was founded on and not what it was supposed to be about. That means this grand coalition was no more and those of us that lean liberal or independent on social issues were on our own.
Instead the Tea Party just became a re-branding of those far right fringe groups that previously fell under Christian Coalition or Religious Right. And as a result a number of Tea Party candidates have recently fallen flat on their face, because they stated bizarre opinions concerning abortions and gay rights. Things like "Legitimate rape" and suggesting a woman can't become pregnant through rape. Hardly what the Tea party was supposed to be about.
As an example, the company my dad has worked for, for the past 20 years or so, has continually--over the last five years specifically--asked its lowest workers to produce more while paying them less. Even while maintaining or improving profits. So, increasing your income by a million a year isn't enough, you want to increase it by 5-10 million?
Am I missing something?
Quote: NareedThe market always sets the wage. Always.
If government decrees an hourly payment that's worth more than the service rendered, such jobs will vanish. Or such wages will not be paid. That is, either most employers will find a substitute or a loophole.
Minnimum wage jobs are largely unskilled or low-skilled. The supply for such jobs is huge, after all pretty much anyone can do them. Furhter, productivity gains in such jobs are limited. Therefore what most employers will do is either replace jobs with machines, when possible, consolidate several jobs into fewer or even just one (having 3 janitors insteas of five, for example), dump some jobs into existing employers with higher wages (for instance getting the secretary to distribute handbills on his way to work), or find some loophole allowing a lower wage (there are always loopholes to be found; think internships, for instance in this case).
There's no way around it. Even in totalitarian communist dictatorships, the market wound up allocating resources. That is to say, the resources and labor followed the incentives.
Wouldn't 3 janitors doing the job of 5 count as an increase in productivity?
Quote: mcallister3200It's flawed to think that if minimum wage is raised that prices at places that employ minimum wage labor must increase. Wages are a minimal factor on prices of goods, a company will charge as much as they can get a satisfactory amount of customers to pay and it has always been the primary factor. Not saying minimum wage should be $10 an hour but the logic of it significantly affecting prices just doesn't follow.
You're right, they'll just lay off workers instead.
. Which would be different than the way things work now?Quote: Beethoven9thYou're right, they'll just lay off workers instead.
Quote: mcallister3200. Which would be different than the way things work now?
Yes, a lot more people will end up getting laid off.
Quote: LarrySme too...i agree....and I am not kidding.... actually the worst for of advertising is when someone puts a flyer in the crack of your home door, or hangs it on the doorknob.
a great advertisement that no one is home when you go on vacation
Lately Verizon has begun a WEEKLY campaign of leaving flyers for Fios in the door -- and this is in a condo community with prominent signs prohibiting soliciting. Really burns my butt.
Quote: BuzzardJust tune your radio dial to Rush Limbaugh and you will soon realize it's all the worker's fault. And the unions. If it wasn't for the unions passing laws years ago, I could get my grand kids after school jobs in the coal mine.
Nice try but the anti-child labor movement started before unions got much power. The first child labor laws were nationally passed in 1916, the most modern ones in 1938. The Wagner Act, which was the birth of modern unions, was passed in 1935. Unions had little if anything to do with it.
However, unions have helped destroy industries from railroads to steel to autos to many others in the USA by unreasonable demands. Heck, I haves seen strikes over a matter of $1 a day, and this was in 1999!
Quote: odiousgambitIt's not brought out often enough: having workers work less than 40 hours - workers who thought they were full time - has in many cases saved more money for these companies than the minimum wage thing. Of course, many workers get the double whammy, minimum wage and less than 40 hours a week both.
*sigh* Here is the thing, the job is not there for the convenience of the worker but to fill the needs of the employer. Lets take the average McDonald's since they are the main whipping boy for people who seem to think every job is supposed to let you "raise a family."
Most McDonald's have their busy time at lunch, lets say 11-1. So you need crew to start ramping up at 10 and ramp down until 2. Then the store is dead until at least 4. You do not need as much crew to man the place from 2-4. So you hire people with the understanding that they will work 10-2 or so. There are many people who can use such a schedule, mothers with kids in school for example might like this arrangement.
If they want full time there are other employers, though Obamacare makes it more expensive to put people to full time so there will be fewer places willing to do so.
It is nowhere written that every job should be full time and "pay a living wage." I do plenty of part-time gigs that don't "pay a living wage" as side hustles and they would disappear if such a wage was mandatory.
Quote: ewjones080
As an example, the company my dad has worked for, for the past 20 years or so, has continually--over the last five years specifically--asked its lowest workers to produce more while paying them less. Even while maintaining or improving profits. So, increasing your income by a million a year isn't enough, you want to increase it by 5-10 million?
Am I missing something?
I think you are missing something. It IS the goal of a business owner to increase his earnings by as much as is possible. If said business owner is making $1,000,000 per year and can double that by a new advertising plan, should he have to increase the wages of his workers who are doing the same work? Uh oh, the new advertising plan didn't work.... now he is making only 100,000 a year, but if he cut his workers salaries 90% he would have no workers... so.... he TOOK THE RISK, and he lost. The worker takes no risk... he comes to work for the shifts he signed up for and gets paid the wages he and the employer agreed to.....
As far as 'asking the lowest workers to produce more', well geez, what should the owner do? I would ALWAYS be asking my workers to produce AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE no matter how much they are being paid.... Why should they be producing LESS than what is possible? If the workers feel that they are not being treated fairly, or not being compensated fairly, I believe they can QUIT and look for a job that meets those goals. If they are WORTH IT to a prospective employer, they will get that new job!
As far as what happens when minimum wages rise, it can be any of the below, and usually a combination of them...
1. Company makes less money, and in the extreme, becomes unprofitable and goes out of business.
2. Company figures out a way to become more efficient and pares its workforce without need to raise prices
3. Company raises prices, and since its competitors do as well, remains profitable, but adds to overall inflation
Earlier in my life I worked many minimum wage jobs as a student, and was happy for the opportunity. The availability of the opportunity trumped the actual amount of money I was making. My fear is that a youngster may not get that opportunity if the minimum wage is raised too high.
Talk about blind faith!Quote: NareedThe market always sets the wage. Always.
I don't believe in the market's efficiency. Never seen any in the real world.
Some argue that inflation and interest rates are too low. Some also argue that increasing minimum wage increases spending which helps businesses.
Take a look at my daughter. Minimum wage is $9.60/hour for her (student wage). She worked 100 hours last fall and the place she worked for is still in business and still quite profitable. She put 25% of it in a savings account (good girl) but with the rest she bought stuff. She went to a sci-fi convention. She went to see movies. She bought clothers, and makeup, and other crap. It was all disposable income because she lives at her parents' home with everything on her parent's dime.
So, let's think about this. What happens when we earn more? We tend to spend more. We might buy more expensive food. We might have some disposable income for entertainment. That extra money doesn't go into a savings account or under a bed - it typically goes back into the economy through more spending, and the economy grows.
And you can look at historical studies. Raising a minimum wage by 10% doesn't raise prices by 10% or reduce employment by 10%. It may raise prices a bit and reduce employment by a bit, but when all employers are in the same boat, it forces them to compete on a level playing field. For big business, it already is running at its most efficient model and raising the minimum wage could only have the effect of raising prices (not reducing employment) to compensate.
Youngsters will continue to get minimum wage jobs. That opportunity will not go away because people are required to work. Movie theatres and fast food outlets (common first jobs) will continue to exist. You might be paying an extra dime for those nuggets or that box of popcorn, but America's too fat anyway.
Quote: SOOPOOI think you are missing something. It IS the goal of a business owner to increase his earnings by as much as is possible. If said business owner is making $1,000,000 per year and can double that by a new advertising plan, should he have to increase the wages of his workers who are doing the same work? Uh oh, the new advertising plan didn't work.... now he is making only 100,000 a year, but if he cut his workers salaries 90% he would have no workers... so.... he TOOK THE RISK, and he lost. The worker takes no risk... he comes to work for the shifts he signed up for and gets paid the wages he and the employer agreed to.....
As far as 'asking the lowest workers to produce more', well geez, what should the owner do? I would ALWAYS be asking my workers to produce AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE no matter how much they are being paid.... Why should they be producing LESS than what is possible? If the workers feel that they are not being treated fairly, or not being compensated fairly, I believe they can QUIT and look for a job that meets those goals. If they are WORTH IT to a prospective employer, they will get that new job!
As far as what happens when minimum wages rise, it can be any of the below, and usually a combination of them...
1. Company makes less money, and in the extreme, becomes unprofitable and goes out of business.
2. Company figures out a way to become more efficient and pares its workforce without need to raise prices
3. Company raises prices, and since its competitors do as well, remains profitable, but adds to overall inflation
Earlier in my life I worked many minimum wage jobs as a student, and was happy for the opportunity. The availability of the opportunity trumped the actual amount of money I was making. My fear is that a youngster may not get that opportunity if the minimum wage is raised too high.
All good points.
I would add that if the 2008 financial crisis taught business anything, it was to save for a rainy day.
Over the past several years there's now almost a hatred toward business in some camps: like business is the enemy / wealth is the enemy.
If I create a small business and take on all of the risk and it grows into a large business that is profitable, should not I be rewarded for taking the initial risk? More and more, there's an attitude that something is "owed" above and beyond to what was agreed to.
Quote: kubikulannTalk about blind faith!
I don't believe in the market's efficiency. Never seen any in the real world.
The market does not always set the wage, the government sometimes makes employers pay above market rates.
Quote: boymimbo
Youngsters will continue to get minimum wage jobs. That opportunity will not go away because people are required to work. Movie theatres and fast food outlets (common first jobs) will continue to exist. You might be paying an extra dime for those nuggets or that box of popcorn, but America's too fat anyway.
I guess you missed the transition to self-service in everything from gas stations to kiosks at fast food joints to cash registers at retail stores?
Quote: Alanhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/01/30/almost-everything-you-have-been-told-about-the-minimum-wage-is-false/
What a load of crap.
Quote: AZDuffmanI guess you missed the transition to self-service in everything from gas stations to kiosks at fast food joints to cash registers at retail stores?
Which would have happened anyway... do you think that these technical innovations would not have occurred if minimum wage was reduced to $6/hour?
Quote: 3for3Wouldn't 3 janitors doing the job of 5 count as an increase in productivity?
Not necessarily. Perhaps they won't do as good of a job. Say they'd mop some parts of the total floor surface instead of all of it every day. Or go from scrubbing every toilet every day to every other day. Things like that.
Now, that may seem harmless. I'd argue it is, but not so much for the two who lost their jobs. And in some industries it's not harmless. Take the food industry. Cleaning is essential. By this I mean everything from wholesalers, producers, distributors, processors, grocery stores and restaurants, among many others. Have you ever visited a meat packing plant? The floors tend to wind up drenched in blood. In the processing floor, in the receiving area, in the loading area. People are always mopping up. Otherwise you'll attract vermin and they'll get into the food.
Then if minnimum wage cuts the number of janitorial staff at a food plant, either other workers will ahve to take up the slack or the quality will suffer. Or the price will go up. Or production will move elsewhere. Frozen meat is very much eternal. If shipping costs trump labor costs, you can do your processing in another country, even one very far away Other foodstuffs can be preserved a long time with refrigeration, vaccum-packing or canning. For example, the shelf life of a can of tuna is 2.5 years. Few other canned goods don't have a minnimum of 8 months.
