[macintologist]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...nwork0210.html

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.
That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.
Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.
And teens are among the first workers to go.
Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.
Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.
"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' "
Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.
"We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."

So basically, the majority of people who work for minimum wage are high schoolers and senior citizens, two demographics that aren't working to put food on the table. Now people who would rather work a low paying job than get laid off don't even have the choice between the two. What a stupid idea this.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...nwork0210.html
So basically, the majority of people who work for minimum wage are high schoolers and senior citizens, two demographics that aren't working to put food on the table. Now people who would rather work a low paying job than get laid off don't even have the choice between the two. What a stupid idea this.

Where do you think the poor work? They hold the same minimum wage jobs.

You also have no proof a majority of people earning minimum wage are high schoolers and senior citizens. I really doubt they are, and if senior citizens are working those jobs... well, I'm guessing that they do need to put food on the table, and they're probably in the lower class.

[macintologist]

Actually I do have proof and it's right here in my pocket

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

Look at table #7= Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

The majority of minimum wage earners are kids just working on the side to save up for a Gamecube.

[Ganesha]

If he can afford to layoff three workers and decrease hours worked by others, without hurting sales, then he never had the customers needed for a workforce of 25 to begin with.

Edit: Maybe if he paid a little more, his turnover rate wouldn't be so high?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

If he can afford to layoff three workers and decrease hours worked by others, without hurting sales, then he never had the customers needed for a workforce of 25 to begin with.

Edit: Maybe if he paid a little more, his turnover rate wouldn't be so high?

Um, his payroll artificially went up due to the min wage increase. He had to cut the hours to compensate.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Actually I do have proof and it's right here in my pocket

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

Look at table #7= Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

The majority of minimum wage earners are kids just working on the side to save up for a Gamecube.

There are several problems with your numbers. First, to accurately gauge how the minimum wage hike will affect the lower class, you have to take into account everyone who is below the minimum wage. In addition, we know nothing of the people under 25 who were working exactly at the minimum wage (in since the only data you provided was for people working exactly at the minimum wage). These people most like were lower class. Just because they are 25 or younger doesn't mean they aren't lower class. Also your link does not back up what you said: that a majority of workers at the old minimum wage were kids. In fact, it says close to half, but definitely not a majority.

You're trying to read further into the numbers than I think you really can. They still don't back up anything you're saying. In fact, the numbers say only %25 of workers exactly at minimum wage are teens.

[macintologist]

The table says there were 1.8 million min wage workers, 1 million of them are under 25. Half a mil are 16-19, half a mil are 20-24. They are just high school and college kids who more likely than not dont have a family to take care of.

Besides, the key issue here is that employers should have the freedom to set whatever wage they want, and employees should be free to accept or reject any wage that pleases them. The issue here is freedom.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Besides, the key issue here is that employers should have the freedom to set whatever wage they want, and employees should be free to accept or reject any wage that pleases them. The issue here is freedom.

If this was the case, what would happen is area business would get together and lowball the minimum wage so there is no comp, and they all could benefit from paying employees crap.

What really sucks about this is, those making slightly above min wage will now be making mw. They wont raise their pay unless they HAVE to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If this was the case, what would happen is area business would get together and lowball the minimum wage so there is no comp, and they all could benefit from paying employees crap.

What really sucks about this is, those making slightly above min wage will now be making mw. They wont raise their pay unless they HAVE to.

Bingo! Plus the fact that with a minimum wage hike, the first jobs cut will be the unskilled. The unskilled comprise the people this idea was supposed to help. Bad idea.

[smacintush]

I just love how people seem to think that small business owners (who, the last time I checked were the number one minimum wage employer) just have a stash of free money waiting around to give to their employees.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I just love how people seem to think that small business owners (who, the last time I checked were the number one minimum wage employer) just have a stash of free money waiting around to give to their employees.

That's not how the story goes. Those who favor minimum-wage increases tend to hypothesize that employers can make up for the costs in increased productivity.

The only problem is, that's all that it is: a hypothesis. There's no way to test it. It's an odd leap of faith from a group that ordinarily prides itself on being all scientific.

[Mark Larr]

The minimum wage lie is merely a ploy to boost unemployment so the left can blame the higher numbers on the current administration at the expense of the poor as usual.

[Sky Captain]

You want to see low wages for highly skilled?
Work as a flight instructor.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The table says there were 1.8 million min wage workers, 1 million of them are under 25. Half a mil are 16-19, half a mil are 20-24. They are just high school and college kids who more likely than not dont have a family to take care of.

The average college student is $20k deep in student loans. You can't argue that they don't need a wage increase.

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Besides, the key issue here is that employers should have the freedom to set whatever wage they want, and employees should be free to accept or reject any wage that pleases them. The issue here is freedom.

Workers, such as college students, often don't have a choice. The only jobs they can get are part time jobs that pay minimum wage. In addition, the minimum wage needs to be at least raised to keep pace with inflation.

There are going to be costs to running a business, whether small or large. Businesses don't get free tickets. As inflation has gone up, businesses are pulling in more money, but this has yet to be reflected in the minimum wage.

In addition, many states already mandate a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, and sometimes still higher than the new minimum wage. The right is making a big deal over this, when in reality, in most places the state minimum wage is already more already. For example, I worked minimum wage in Oregon for a bit, and this new minimum wage wouldn't have actually affected me. Oregon minimum wage was still higher than even the new minimum wage. Effect on business owners? Nothing. In fact, because we already have places that institute higher minimum wages, you can't argue that a higher federal minimum wage would kill business. In a lot of places, businesses do fine with a higher minimum wage.

In short, the right's fear mongering on the new minimum wage is bunk.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The average college student is $20k deep in student loans. You can't argue that they don't need a wage increase.

So, we should let them get fired because small businesses have to magically have to find more money for payroll to remain in the black?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

So, we should let them get fired because small businesses have to magically have to find more money for payroll to remain in the black?

We should at least enforce keeping the minimum wage current with inflation. In businesses were responsible enough to decide a minimum wage like you're implying, the minimum wage should stay current with inflation, but it's not.

I talked about debt because Macinologist implied college students don't need the money, they're all to busy "saving for Gamecubes." This isn't true at all.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

As inflation has gone up, businesses are pulling in more money

No, that's not how it works. The numbers go up, but the value stays the same. That's what inflation means. Business do not benefit from inflation driven price hikes.

[OldManMac]

Maybe it is a good idea.

Vindication: DixieMinimum Wage Raise Is Good for Business

Minimum Wage Raise Is Good for Business
by Holly Sklar

The minimum wage is headed for a raise -- back to the 1950s. That's right, even after rising from $5.15 now to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage will still be lower than it was in 1956, when it was $7.41 in today's dollars.
The minimum wage was enacted in 1938 through the Fair Labor Standards Act, designed to eliminate "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of workers."

The minimum wage was never meant to be the minimum the nation's worst employers want to pay. That would be as absurd as setting environmental policies to accommodate the worst polluters.

Business lobbyists who'd abolish the minimum wage if they could have held it hostage for 10 years -- the longest period ever without a raise. Now they want to collect a ransom of tax breaks to let it go.

Since its last raise in 1997, the minimum wage has fallen 20 percent, adjusted for inflation, while domestic corporate profits are up 74 percent, retail profits are up 55 percent, and business has reaped $312 billion in tax breaks.

"I'm sick of all the talk about business needing tax relief as compensation for a higher minimum wage," says Steve Zorn, managing partner of Castle Village Farm of Florida. "We don't need relief. Workers are the ones who need relief. We've gotten plenty of tax breaks for business and certainly don't need to pile more onto minimum wage legislation that won't hurt business to begin with."

Minimum wage critics predictably forecast dire consequences with every raise, and are just as predictably wrong. After the last federal minimum wage hikes in 1996 and 1997, the nation experienced dramatically stronger job growth, and lower inflation and poverty rates. States that have raised their minimum wages above $5.15 have had better employment and small business trends than states that have not.

Minimum wage raises aren't put under mattresses -- or offshore tax havens. They are recycled back into the economy.

"Overall most low-wage workers pump every dollar of their paychecks directly into the local economy by spending their money in their neighborhood stores, local pharmacies and corner markets," notes Dan Gardner, commissioner of Labor and Industries for Oregon, which has the nation's second-highest minimum wage at $7.80.

"Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation," says a statement supporting higher minimum wage signed by the CEOs of Costco, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Majority, Eileen Fisher apparel company and more than 500 business owners across the nation -- from the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York and Dixie Rod & Custom in Alabama to the Mercury Cafe in Colorado and Broetje Orchards in Washington. From Candle Enterprises in Minnesota and Vintage Vinyl in Missouri to North Georgia Woodworks and Small Biz Survival in Oklahoma.

"Trying to save money by shortchanging my employees would be like skimping on ingredients," explains statement signer Kirsten Poole, co-owner of Kirsten's Cafe and Dish Caterers in Silver Spring, MD. "I'd lose more than I saved because of declining quality, service, reputation and customer base. You can't build a healthy business or a healthy economy on a miserly minimum wage."

U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce CEO Margot Dorfman says, "When businesses don't pay a living wage all society pays. We pay through poverty and needless disease, disability and death from inadequate health care. We pay as women struggle to put food on the table. We pay as businesses and communities suffer economic decline."

Successful businesses like Kirsten's Cafe and Seventh Generation, the nation's leading brand of non-toxic household products, know that miserly wages are toxic to our families, communities and economy.

If employers can't stay in business without keeping their employees in poverty, there's something wrong with their business models.

Even at $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage would still be two bucks short of the value it had in 1968, four decades ago. (my emphasis)

As the business owners' statement says, "We cannot build a strong 21st century economy when more and more hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet."


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



A basic course in the economics of employment is something that those who oppose this either need, or is something that they don't want anyone to have, for their own selfish reasons. Some people never will see the forest for the trees.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Since its last raise in 1997, the minimum wage has fallen 20 percent, adjusted for inflation, while domestic corporate profits are up 74 percent, retail profits are up 55 percent, and business has reaped $312 billion in tax breaks.

Trickle-down economics, anyone?

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Minimum wage critics predictably forecast dire consequences with every raise, and are just as predictably wrong. After the last federal minimum wage hikes in 1996 and 1997, the nation experienced dramatically stronger job growth, and lower inflation and poverty rates. States that have raised their minimum wages above $5.15 have had better employment and small business trends than states that have not.

I disagree with the correlations they're trying to make here.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Besides, the key issue here is that employers should have the freedom to set whatever wage they want, and employees should be free to accept or reject any wage that pleases them. The issue here is freedom.

You could make the exact same argument about any regulation designed to protect employees: Worker safety, child labor laws, etc. They all raise the cost to the employers, and therefore you could argue they all "harm who they're designed to help," because employers will have to lay off workers.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No, that's not how it works. The numbers go up, but the value stays the same. That's what inflation means. Business do not benefit from inflation driven price hikes.

I'm aware the value stays the same. The problem is, minimum wage has not been shifted to reflect the same inflation of value. If a business doubles it's income due to inflation, the value of it's income stays the same. Yet the minimum wage only has half the value it previously did. See the problem?

[OldManMac]

This issue is very similar to the auto industry's crying whenever a new safety or emissions rule is proposed. The scream and send their lobbyists to Washington because it will increase the cost of their cars and people will stop buying them. What in fact has happened is that, except for an occasional off year, car sales increase regularly, despite that cost of cars going up, sometimes significantly. One could buy a new car in the late fifties for under $2000; today one can't even find a decent used car at that price, but, with the exception of those making the minimum wage, most people can pay for, if not always truly afford to spend more than that on a car, because their wages have gone up more than enough to cover the difference. This whole issue is a red herring, with the opponents just looking for ways to keep more for themselves. It's interesting that they claim they can't afford to pay their employees more, but they can spend lobbying money to make their claims.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Article

"Trying to save money by shortchanging my employees would be like skimping on ingredients," explains statement signer Kirsten Poole, co-owner of Kirsten's Cafe and Dish Caterers in Silver Spring, MD. "I'd lose more than I saved because of declining quality, service, reputation and customer base. You can't build a healthy business or a healthy economy on a miserly minimum wage."

Er, so why don't you just raise the wages you pay your employees? It's not like you're bound to pay no more than minimum wage, you can pay as much as you like. This is not a valid argument for minimum wage.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm aware the value stays the same. The problem is, minimum wage has not been shifted to reflect the same inflation of value. If a business doubles it's income due to inflation, the value of it's income stays the same. Yet the minimum wage only has half the value it previously did. See the problem?

I do see the problem. However, what do you think business owners are going to do when they're forced to raise their wages? They don't want to compromise their margins, so they're left with two choices: lay off workers or raise prices. In both cases, it's the workers who are hurt because either they're now making no money at all, or, since prices have gone up, the increase in wages doesn't actually do them any good!

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Um, his payroll artificially went up due to the min wage increase. He had to cut the hours to compensate.

That doesn't matter for my argument. If he can cut hours/employees and not effect his sales, he never needed those employees anyway.
If lower staffing levels does effect his sales, then he needs to figure out, what the optimum staffing level is.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Er, so why don't you just raise the wages you pay your employees? It's not like you're bound to pay no more than minimum wage, you can pay as much as you like. This is not a valid argument for minimum wage.

Because businesses are cheap?

Besides, as I've pointed out, in most cases local minimum wage is already higher. This is just the federal government maintaining it's minimum wage. In most cases, a higher federal minimum wage will not be changing most people's wages because the local minimum wage is already higher.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I do see the problem. However, what do you think business owners are going to do when they're forced to raise their wages? They don't want to compromise their margins, so they're left with two choices: lay off workers or raise prices. In both cases, it's the workers who are hurt because either they're now making no money at all, or, since prices have gone up, the increase in wages doesn't actually do them any good!

The right uses this argument a lot, that the economy is like a tank of water, and that raising the minimum wage only raises the water level. The problem is that there is only so much money in the system, i.e. there is only so much water in the tank.

All it takes is one business that doesn't raise it's prices and you have a price war. I think you'll find that businesses would rather lower margins than lose customers to another business.

The entire idea that businesses will pass on the expense of a higher minimum wage to consumers is scare tactics by the right again.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The entire idea that businesses will pass on the expense of a higher minimum wage to consumers is scare tactics by the right again.

Exactly. Even if they do, people adjust. If they couldn't, or wouldn't, we's still be buying a loaf of bread for ten cents, and new cars for a couple of thousand dollars. We're not, because, most peoples' income goes up to adjust to cost of living increases, except of course, the working poor. They just get struggle along, while the gap between the well off and them continues to widen. That's really what this issue is about; those who own capital feel as if they have a sense of entitlement, and those who don't have little power to do anything about it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The table says there were 1.8 million min wage workers, 1 million of them are under 25. Half a mil are 16-19, half a mil are 20-24. They are just high school and college kids who more likely than not dont have a family to take care of.

Besides, the key issue here is that employers should have the freedom to set whatever wage they want, and employees should be free to accept or reject any wage that pleases them. The issue here is freedom.

So you counted the 20-24 age group as being in high school? That seems very fishy.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Because businesses are cheap?

Besides, as I've pointed out, in most cases local minimum wage is already higher. This is just the federal government maintaining it's minimum wage. In most cases, a higher federal minimum wage will not be changing most people's wages because the local minimum wage is already higher.

How is this even a federal issue? It should be done locally (if at all) as the wage requirements of the people vary drastically from place to place.

The right uses this argument a lot, that the economy is like a tank of water, and that raising the minimum wage only raises the water level. The problem is that there is only so much money in the system, i.e. there is only so much water in the tank.

All it takes is one business that doesn't raise it's prices and you have a price war. I think you'll find that businesses would rather lower margins than lose customers to another business.

The entire idea that businesses will pass on the expense of a higher minimum wage to consumers is scare tactics by the right again.

So now we're using the free market argument to support liberal policies? Sweet.

Why are you assuming that the employees have no say in their wages? Why not allow the employees to negotiate on their own behalf? If they're not being paid enough, they can demand more. Isn't that what unions are for?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

How is this even a federal issue? It should be done locally (if at all) as the wage requirements of the people vary drastically from place to place.

Because there is a national minimum due to inflation. As I've said, most wages won't be affected by the hike in the federal minimum wage because local minimum wage is usually higher. This is just the Republicans whining to try to steal the Democrat's thunder.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So now we're using the free market argument to support liberal policies? Sweet.

Do you assume that Liberals automatically reject all of free market theory? Increasing a companies margins alone won't cause them to pay workers more. You have to go at it from the opposite direction, start regulating at the bottom. It's reverse trickle down theory.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Why are you assuming that the employees have no say in their wages? Why not allow the employees to negotiate on their own behalf? If they're not being paid enough, they can demand more. Isn't that what unions are for?

Excuse me while I roll on the floor an laugh for a bit. Wooooo. Unions in low income jobs. Boy. Have you seen what happens to Walmarts when they attempt to unionize?

Boy, if we forced companies to allow their workers to unionize... I don't think you would find a single liberal who would argue with that.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

That's not how the story goes.

That group is usually only scientific when it suits them.

Anyone who's ever worked in small business will tell you: productivity is usually at a maximum, or close, in the first place. Small businesses have no "slack" when it comes to costs or productivity.

The boost in the min wage is political posturing, pure and simple. It can't help people who don't have jobs in the first place, and it will almost certain cost net jobs.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You could make the exact same argument about any regulation designed to protect employees: Worker safety, child labor laws, etc. They all raise the cost to the employers, and therefore you could argue they all "harm who they're designed to help," because employers will have to lay off workers.

We could, but we're not. We're making it about the minimum wage. So you're arguing for a cost/benefit analysis of the policy? That's what's done with all of those others.

[awcopus]

There is no debate about the minimum wage among economists. It costs jobs.

When you tell a business that it must pay employees more than their productive output, it will adjust its number of employees commensurately, rendering some people unemployable who otherwise would have had jobs. Pass a law requiring the employers hire employees who have a net negative impact on the business, the business will raise prices. Pass a law fixing prices within a sector of the economy, that sector will wither.

What kind of jobs are people deprived of when minimum wage laws are implemented? Low skill jobs, generally the only kinds of jobs that the people applying for them are qualified to do. Deprive them of that opportunity, what do you expect them to do? You think a $3 an hour job is inherently bad? Relative to what, earning NOTHING?!?!

The fundamental moral question is not, "should a business be allowed to offer a job for an hourly rate of ____ to any adult willing to accept it?" but rather "Who should have the right to prevent an adult from accepting a job offer, period?"

This is only a contested issue because there are well-intentioned but economically illiterate people whose emotional responses are easily manipulated by politicians.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by finboy 

We could, but we're not. We're making it about the minimum wage. So you're arguing for a cost/benefit analysis of the policy? That's what's done with all of those others.

You're not making it about those other issues, but it seems to me that macintologist was advocating a particular principle - that employers should have the freedom to do what they want, and then employees have the freedom to take the job or not. I wanted to point out that I don't think most people really believe in that as a general principle. We expect there to be basic standards, even if employers don't like them or don't believe they benefit from them.

My own belief is that, yes, Democrats demagogue this issue because it's very popular, but 1) anything that values labor, which I see as undervalued in our economy, is a good thing, and 2) I think most studies show that the negative effect of minimum wage increases is negligible.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by finboy 

That group is usually only scientific when it suits them.

Anyone who's ever worked in small business will tell you: productivity is usually at a maximum, or close, in the first place. Small businesses have no "slack" when it comes to costs or productivity.

The boost in the min wage is political posturing, pure and simple. It can't help people who don't have jobs in the first place, and it will almost certain cost net jobs.

The problem with the above example that the original poster gave is there are many other circumstances that cause the layoffs. Training costs are up, and turnover is high. Those factors are going to be a much bigger deal.

Big companies like Wal Mart and McDonalds won't be reducing their work forces, and this is where the minimum wage increase is really supposed to make a difference. Small businesses that have high turnover are going to be hurt, yes. But those are risky businesses to begin with. Plus I'm not exactly shedding any tears for kids living at home with their parents, which is still less than a quarter of workers exactly at minimum wage.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by awcopus 

When you tell a business that it must pay employees more than their productive output

This is where I'll get myself into trouble, but doesn't this assume that all employers pay their employees a fair [minimum] wage? (Or am I gonna get hit with 'if the employee accepts it, it automatically becomes a fair wage' here?)

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Training costs are up, and turnover is high. Those factors are going to be a much bigger deal.

Not to mention low wages go hand in hand with high turnover. For example, In-n-Out Burger has much lower turn over then it's rivals in the burger industry. Part of the reason is they pay a higher wages and offer benefits to all full time employees. Despite paying higher wages, In-n-out is still highly price competitive, proving that high wages and higher priced product are not always correlated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_n_out

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If this was the case, what would happen is area business would get together and lowball the minimum wage so there is no comp, and they all could benefit from paying employees crap.

I'm guessing that's already illegal.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm guessing that's already illegal.

Why would it be illegal?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Why would it be illegal?

It sounds like collusion.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sounds like collusion.

Companies colluding to set worker pay is legal iirc. What is illegal is working together to control prices.

After all, Unions are legal, and those span multiple employers.

[subego]

Good point.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by awcopus 

...When you tell a business that it must pay employees more than their productive output, it will adjust its number of employees commensurately, rendering some people unemployable who otherwise would have had jobs...

The fallacy of this argument is the assumption that the wage an employee earns is indeed commensurate with their productive output. Maybe or maybe not. Maybe the workers are merely being exploited. The only way you could possibly make this type of claim would be if we operated in a free market. We may have some free market mechanisms, but we hardly have a free market.

In terms of pure economics, is it cheaper to pay people a living wage or cheaper to incarcerate them when they must turn to crime in order to live? The social unrest of the homeless starving masses is not conducive to most business. It's not particularly conducive to democracy or republicanism, either.

Although I am a proponent of the safety net and minimum wage, I readily admit that it's not nearly granular enough. A uniform national minimum wage that does not take into account regional cost of living hardly seems comprehensive. The minimum wage in the NYC metro area should be higher than that of, say, West Virginia. Plus it's not like this is Minimum Wage 1.0 beta release; we've been at this for decades and you'd think we would have refined it over the years to make it more just.

I would also offer a compromise to Republicans and libertarians, namely, that only corporations should be bound be the minimum; after all, a corporation hardly falls under the domain of natural rights; it is a legal construct operating at the behest of the state to avoid the burdens of personal responsibility. So call "minimum wage" one of the conditions the state requires in order to absolve corporate officers and the like of being responsible for their actions. Call it part of the contract that a corporation enters into with the state. Given that the average CEO makes over 500x the wage of the average worker, I don't think too many corporations are going to be troubled by it.

-S

[wolfen]

I recognize this is just one take on the matter, but here's an angle:

Retail/fast food/etc. companies always had a choice: attract decent people and provide training and incentives that reduce turnover OR pay crap and take the high turnover that comes with it. The elite didn't mind grinding up the poor and pocketing their disgruntlement in the form of extra profit. Now they have to consider...just a we bit more...how to keep turnover down so the higher wages don't hurt so bad.

I'm also not crying for the OP's laid off teens. In my county a lot of poor need these min. wage jobs to survive. If the teens didn't have an easy time finding crap work they might think twice before dropping out of school so quickly.Meanwhile, the people who really need the work will likely work harder to keep better paying jobs.

Congress' salaries should be tied to the minimum wage.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

You want to see low wages for highly skilled?
Work as a flight instructor.

Quoted for truth.

[OldManMac]

Here's a few people who don't seem to be threatened by a minimum wage hike. Of course, many of them own their own business, so what would they know?

http://www.businessforafairminimumwa...gnatories#full