Posted by silentpadna on 5/1/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):
>>We pay for food stamps, welfare, EIC, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care, and countless other social safety nets so that companies like McDonalds and Walmart can keep their labor costs low and their profits high.<<

We don't do that for that purpose.  Their profits are "high" (whatever that means) because they have a business model that works.  We pay for what we value.  The reason pay is not high for McD and WM workers is that their skills are in high supply.  It's not hard to find people who can perform the skill.  People who have that skill would charge more if there was a higher demand for them.  Just like any other commodity, product or service.  The safety net is there publicly (through government) because that's what society has decided is government's job.  If you start your own business making lemonade, you're going to buy the lemonade at as low of a price as you can, and you're going to charge for lemonade the most you can and still make whatever you deem your risk to be worth.  If your profit margin isn't high enough, you're not going to do it...

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2014 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Minimum wage is a Catch-22.   

Posted by silentpadna on 5/1/2014 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/1/2014 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

That's hardly a response.  Mike's post is entirely reasonable.

Any regulation, tax, fee, act of God, etc. has consequences.  Forcing employers to pay more for labor puts pressure on profit.  Those who go into business do so in the hopes that their profit exceeds the amount they would make if they invested - risked - their money elsewhere.  Absorbing the cost is not a realistic option if there is an opportunity to do better by taking another action.  A company can:

1.  Raise prices of its product or service to maintain the required return on their investment
2.  Reduce the cost of providing the product or service to maintain the required return on their investment.  (through fewer jobs)
3.  Some combination thereof.
4.  Choose the opportunity of eliminating their investment in the affected enterprise and investing in something different.

Every one of these options ultimately doesn't squeeze the big guy, as minimum wage advocates intend, but instead end up indirectly hurting the very people they are "trying to help".  Increased prices, job losses (check the CBO February 2014 estimate of job loss related to minimum wage hike), or companies moving out (more job losses) all affect those who work these positions.

If you don't consider context and ramifications of change, you'll never see how this stuff works.

By the way raising taxes on "the rich" or "corporations" exerts the same type of pressure, which is why targeted tax hikes on whoever makes more than me don't accomplish what their advocates publicly claim (but most privately don't believe).

By that logic we should lower or eliminate the minimum wage, right? I mean, allowing employers to pay employees $3.15 would create way more jobs.

I'm not advocating the elimination of minimum wage, but wages would settle out somewhere just based on supply and demand.  The fact is that there are jobs that are not worth people's time if the pay is not enough.  But reversing that for a minute, if you simply raised minimum wage, something has to happen in response.  Why not just raise minimum wage to $50/hour?  That way everyone would make six figures.  Would that work?  The question still remains:  who is helped and who is hurt by raising the minimum wage and what is that action intended to accomplish?  Does it accomplish what it's supposed to?  If it doesn't, do we raise more?  And then more again? 

Businesses are going to profit or they are going to go away.  You cannot legislate that part out or businesses would never start.  If there is a demand for the product or service, they will profit as long as they can supply it at a price people are willing to pay.  If you put upward price pressure enough people won't demand the product. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):
It's just a math question and it's pointless to argue it with anyone as dense as BL seems to be.

Increase in labor/materials =

A)  lower profits
B) higher service charges/products

Which do you think businesses will choose?  

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):
It's just a math question and it's pointless to argue it with anyone as dense as BL seems to be.

Increase in labor/materials =

A)  lower profits
B) higher service charges/products

Which do you think businesses will choose?  

I left out an option.

C)  lower quality of service or products.

I could hire 30 maids instead of 50 to clean my hotel rooms.   Wouldn't be quite as clean but that's the price you pay.   Sorry about that pube on the sink but my maids are making $18 an hour now.   Seems like they'd do a better job.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2014 8:31:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not sure training/education is even the answer.   Someone has to muck stalls, clean toilets, serve fast food, greet Wal-Mart customers, etc, etc.   The simple fact of the matter is there are only so many "good" jobs and, if we train/educate everyone out of the low-paying ones, who's going to do them?   Everyone can't wear a suit and make 100k a year. 

That's also true.    Everyone can't be trained/educated to another level. 

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/2/2014 12:32:00 AM (view original):
The cycle just continues. 

Raise minimum wage & businesses that employ many minimum wage workers (McD, Walmart, etc) pass that cost along to the consumer. Not to mention all of the Union workers whose pay will increase which will raise the prices of consumer goods manufactured by union workers.

Now the new minimum wage buys the same as it once did, but what HAS changed is the people who WERE lower middle class are now also paying more for what they consume.

So in effect you just end up pushing more and more lower middle and middle class families down the ladder and not helping the poor up the ladder.

Want to help the minimum wage earner? Help them with training and/or education, so they can move up the wage ladder.