Back on topic: a somewhat lengthy read, but points well made.

Agreed.  An ******* like you is a much better choice as policy maker.

And there's also this story today.

Anecdotal story.

When I was 20, I got in a financial bind.  College, car, rent, etc, etc, was just more than I was making.  Had to take a semester off to get things straight.   Took two jobs in addition to my somewhat(30+ hours) full-time job.   One was working a midnight shift at a convenience store.  I wasn't the most motivated worker but I didn't miss a shift and completed my duties every night.  And, unlike the others, my register was right(counting, yay!!!).   Got to know the manager and told her my ideas on why the store was always ******(worst part of town, high theft, weak inventory control, workers not held accountable, etc, etc.  Nothing groundbreaking).  About a month later, the regional manager said my manager spoke highly of me and offered me a store manager job.   I declined as I was going back to college but the point is that, in that case, I did nothing special other than handle my duties properly and was offered a spot up the food chain.

Similar story for me during my college years.  I worked nights and weekends in a small chain toy store at the local mall in my hometown in Pennsylvania for 3 1/2 years, making minimum wage.  Stocking shelves, working the cash register, whatever I was asked to do.  Averaged between 28-33 a hours a week during my entire time there.  Sometimes went as long as three straight weeks without a day off if I go stuck with back-to-back Sunday shifts.  I worked hard, did what I was told, and had a good relationship with the manager, assistant manager, and my co-workers.  I got to the point where I was occasionally put in charge of the store if/when both the manager and asst. mgr. both took a night or a Sunday off, would close out the register, make the nightly bank deposit, etc.

After I graduated college, I had my first "career" job lined up in Connecticut, but would not be starting until September.  So I had a final summer there.  Around the same time, the owner of the store sold the chain to a larger chain, and we got gobbled up by a corporate entity.  About half the employees were let go, but the manager and I and one other person were retained.  I was 21, but when the new regional manager was looking to hire a new assistant manager after letting the old one go, he asked me what my post--college plans were.  I think the job would have been mine if I wanted it, but I turned it down because I had my other job already waiting for me.  They were still kind enough to allow me to spend my last summer there with a promotion (head cashier) and a 30% raise (from $3.35 an hour to $4.35 an hour).

My point was, other than to let dahs know I read the entire article(WHAT???!?!) despite it's length, to relay the bloggers point that it's not difficult to stand out when you're compared to your lazy, **** this place peers.    And, in some cases, you could be rewarded for simply showing up and handling your duties.

I'd like to add that I wasn't ****-talking my co-workers when I was talking about accountability.    I told my manager that allowing a $10 short on the register without accountability was kinda dumb.   I told her  that was a license to steal.  I pointed out that my register was always right so they were telling me that I could take $9 a night.   Which was more than 2 hours pay.

NCL

I get the reasoning of raising the minimum. And I don't think anyone would really argue (without just being a troll) that the McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Target types would be affected too much over this. I imagine a collective shrug of the shoulders and they'll keep moving on. It's not as if they'll have massive closures of stores.

BUT

I do have some worry of the mom-and-pop type establishments wherein the owners are working 50-60 hours a week to help them survive. This is especially true in restaurants, which have a low success rate and every buck for them is critical. Adding a few hundred bucks more in employee cost might be the end for these places.

Obviously the big chains turn big profit.   Regardless of what they pay their low level employees, that's unlikely to change.   However, they make these big profits by massive sales numbers.  They get these numbers via "affordable" pricing.   So, in order to keep these big profits rolling in, the general public is likely to see an increase in costs(or, for food, smaller portions).   Who frequents these places?    I doubt Trump bought his 68" flatscreen at Wal-Mart.

If you want to say "Well, they could just make less profit", go ahead.   And good luck with that.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/8/2014 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Obviously the big chains turn big profit.   Regardless of what they pay their low level employees, that's unlikely to change.   However, they make these big profits by massive sales numbers.  They get these numbers via "affordable" pricing.   So, in order to keep these big profits rolling in, the general public is likely to see an increase in costs(or, for food, smaller portions).   Who frequents these places?    I doubt Trump bought his 68" flatscreen at Wal-Mart.

If you want to say "Well, they could just make less profit", go ahead.   And good luck with that.

Well...

"If you want to say "Well, they could just make less profit", go ahead."

yeah, I do want to say that. People don't frequent Wal-Mart and McDonald's because they love the ambiance. They go because it's cheap. If it becomes less cheap, less people will go to those stores. For Wal-Mart to remain profitable, it has to stay cheaper than everyone else, even if the cost of labor goes up.

Why don;t you write a letter to the CEO of Wal-Mart and explain this to him.  I'm sure it will open his eyes.  Please let us know when he responds.