"Businesses that pay less than living wages don't deserve to exist" - President

And? That's pretty common sense. Would you fault an employee for trying to get the most pay he can? Would you fault a customer for trying to get the "best" (lowest) price he can?

What you and so many other people seem to miss that in all these cases and more, it requires two parties agreeing to a price. If you go to a dealership and say "I want that brand new Mercedes for $200", they won't agree and that's it. If they try selling the used 1990 Honda Civic for $240,000, you won't agree to it. It requires a negotiation where both parties agree and, if one side isn't negotiating, then the other side still has the choice. Such is the case when a dealership won't go below MSRP - it's usually because the market value is at or above MSRP. When a business only offers $8/hr on hiring and won't negotiate, it's because that is the market value.

 

The debate over minimum-wage is more complicated than people on both sides would like it to be.

Let the market decide
This ignores certain inconvenient factors, such as the government is always PART of the market. For instance, social safety-net programs essentially subsidize low-wage employers -- and the more such employers, the higher the cost to the government.

In such a situation, mandating a higher minimum wage is a way to lower government costs by reducing the number of mooching employers who require such subsidies. It seems perfectly reasonable to force such employers to actually pay full freight for their workers, rather than profiting by mooching off of taxpayers. And since such employers don't pay a living wage anyway, there aren't many tears to be shed if some of those jobs disappear. Extremely low-paying jobs can be a drag on the economy; getting rid of them actually helps us overall, even as it can be a short-term hardship for the person who lost their job.

Raising the minimum wage decreases competitiveness
This is true if the increases are ridiculously large, or unevenly applied. But it's not true if the increase is uniform, and confined to the bottom tier of jobs.

Businesses risk becoming uncompetitive if their costs (including wages) are significantly higher than the prevailing level in their industry.

(This isn't absolutely true: there are quite a few studies and examples that show companies that pay higher wages are often MORE profitable than those who don't, for reasons involving attracting better workers who feel more invested in the business. But that's a different discussion).

But if ALL businesses in their industry are now required to pay a higher minimum wage, then none of them are at a competitive disadvantage to each other. Minimum wage is a way to increase pay at the low end of the scale without disrupting the playing field for employers.

Jobs vs. share of income
Opponents like to talk about how a higher minimum wage will cost jobs, while supporters like to say it will lift people out of poverty. Both are right; the real question is priorities and scale.

Most studies show that raising the minimum wage has the following effects:
1. Negligible effect on GDP;
2. Slight reduction in employment;
3. Large increase in share of wages going to the poorest workers.

Here's a hypothetical example:
1. There are 1 million minimum-wage jobs.
2. The minimum wage is $10/hour
3. We raise the minimum wage to $12/hour
4. Doing so costs 50,000 of those jobs.

So what happens? We have 5% fewer workers. That's bad.

But the remaining workers are making significantly more money, so the overall income going to the bottom income bracket goes up more than 20%: From $20.8 billion to $25 billion. The poorest workers, as a group, are better off.

Indeed, that increase in the minimum wage could cost as many as 165,000 jobs (16.5% of the total), and the bottom income bracket would still be better off.

So it's a question of what your goal is:
1. Are you attempting to maximize short-term employment, regardless of the quality of those jobs or the government subsidy involved? 2. Are you attempting to get more money into the hands of the poorest workers -- even if it leaves some of those workers worse off?
3. Are you attempting to increase the overall quality of jobs by encouraging some of the lowest-paying jobs to disappear?

My take: The focus should be on lifting as many people as possible out of poverty and discouraging low-wage employers who mooch off of taxpayers. Thus I support modest increases in the minimum wage, even at the cost of some low-wage jobs. In the aggregate it's better for low-wage workers, and it helps reduce dependency on government programs, which leaves us all better off in the long term.

 

When I went into theater, I knew it was a tough road to walk, so that’s fine. @ the time of my entrance to college (circa 2005) research and counseling indicated that even though I wouldn't be making the big bucks, I could reasonably get a job, even outside of my field with a BA in theater (you’d be surprised at the ways working with groups and public speaking can translate in a robust economy)

I didn't know and couldn't have known that the economy was going to face plant at around the time of my graduation though. It wasn’t until I looked into tech (my current occupation) that things started to pick up for me.

Now, if it were just me, I’d just chalk it up to “my bad” and move on. But here’s the thing- My best friend was a certified Teacher in the state of WI, full BA and everything- he couldn’t find work and is working @ a tech place- my wife double majored in Biology and Biotechnology- She couldn’t find work in that field and she’s working tech sup, just like me. Looking at others it’s all the same.

When one person can’t find a job outside of Health, tech, and finance, you shrug and move on. When everyone you meet is finding the same thing you think- The world has changed-

That said, you know, I’m not JUST moping around , I’m going back to school for and working in IT, getting certs on the side, making the most of my keen intellect and new found ambition. Sometimes you zigged when you shoud have zagged, you still have to keep trying.

But blaming kids (in my case I was literally 17 when I started) for not realizing the only fields that will survive a then unheard of meltdown will be health finance or IT doesn’t really hold much water. We made the best decisions we could with the information we had, the world has just changed. Calling what for generations had been smart choices (go to college get a degree get ahead) bad choices just because you now have the power of hindsight is pretty petty.

 

I own a house, 3 vehicles, a boat, etc. I live alone. My expenses, per year, are $15,500. That includes:

1. Quarter million liability limits on my truck and motorcycle, full coverage on my 2012 car for auto insurance with quarter million dollar limits on this vehicle as well.
2. 200 dollars a month in food.
3. 200 a month of fuel expenses.
4. 50 a month cell phone
5. 50 a month home internet
6. 400 a month mortgage payment

The $15,000 figure includes a $4000 dollar emergency fund.

If I can do it, anyone can do it.

Working full time, at 8 dollars an hour, I would have more than enough to live. Live high on the hog? No. But live, and live just fine. Do I get to go on vacations? No. Do I need to? No. Do I have an iPad? No. Am I managing to live without one? Yea. Do I eat steak? No. I eat plenty to fill me up, and lots of veggies. I even treat myself every now and then. And that's without touching the $4000 dollar emergency fund.

10 dollars an hour is $20,000 a year. That's 9K over poverty for a single person. That's more than enough.

 

Where do you live? I live in a city and a home/rental anywhere near where I work is at least 750 a month. Also, I noticed no house tax-- are you exempt? Does your house never need repairs?

Further, I'll point out that while you may be successful enough to afford a house, many people working part time @ BK probably will never have the credit to do that- your wealth gives you advantages that poor people can't imagine. Also doesn't your house need repairs and things?

What if you get sick and cannot work. What if you can't find full time work at BK? (fairly common practice)

 

I used theater as an generic example... lol.... figures someone would have that major here. My room mate majored in it with the plans on moving to NYC. I wish I could remember his name and I'd look up how he is doing today.... I really liked him.

but the point remains valid... he could have moved to his home in south fl with that degree and struggled during down times. That degree is very hard to sell me on because it's not a reliable source, as you said you discovered during the face plant economy.


I chose teaching because... teachers are always needed.... but let me put an * on that statement because I just read your friends situation....

I was unemployed as a teacher one year out of my 14 total... due to a move. I have a friend I worked with last summer at Lowes and she was graduating as for teaching as well. She couldn't find a job either.

It depends on their certification.... Social Studies.... teachers are a dime a dozen.... teachers that teach SPECIAL ED..... I write my own ticket

When I started and wanted to teach history.... I had to take a job noone else wanted in ESE just to get my foot in the door so at least I got paid while waiting to land that social studies job. It took 3 years. But I wasn't unemployed.... Tell your friend to get more certifications. During my unemployement year, I recertified in ESE, which landed me my job I got after a year off. I then added Elementary k-6 to my certificates which helped me land an even better job this year.

But parents need to make sure kids understand good career choices.... make sure they have backup plans... or fallback plans....

if you aren't being taught to set a goal for yourself, have back up plans in place, as a kid... you parents have failed you in preparing for the future.

Theater.... while everyone wants to be the next brad pitt.... you better have a backup plan.

- - - Updated - - -

bad credit is the result of bad economic decisions.....

 

freakin BK was NEVER designed to be rags to riches job for anyone!!!!!! get over it and get back to work.
Gawd, some of you that are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in' about low wages spend a lot of time on the internet (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in' about how freakin poor you are..............

 

@ JavisB

Thanks for the advice, sad thing is he'd make a STELLAR teacher, but he's happy where he is now so AWTEW

I kinda pivoted out of doing theater when I meet my wife (theater dad isn't the kind of dad I want to be), I would have retrained there, but I was so close to grad I figured I'd follow through. I did have a back up plan in customer service/HR- not much mind you I never really wanted much for money just enough to treat my hypethetical family from time to time. Then things got bad and I got sad, then mad then ambitious. I realized I could pivot into IT and make serious dough doing something I enjoy.

Me and my wife are both 1rst gen college so I think the thinking from our family was JUST GO TO SCHOOL! so yeah they coudl def be better at that. OH well lesson learned our kids will be taught better.

To the BK house credit comment, what I should have said is that guy won't make enough money to get a morgage for a home, so unless he can pay in cash (???) then he's pretty well screwed. He's credit could be great or average and he's not gonna get a morgage in today's econ.

 

If you can't find full time work at BK, that's a problem you need to deal with. That's a failure on your part. It doesn't mean you should get more than you are worth per hour. The whole reason people are hired part time is because employers don't need you full time and don't think you are worth that much.

 

Read the article and several questions come to mind.
I don't think that Wal-Mart receives anything from the government. What department mails their check?
It seems that Wal-Mart isn't the only one with cheap labor. I look at BK which only pays their employees minimum wage. Then there's MacDonalds, Wendy's, PizzaHut, Dominoe's, etc. Then's there's Tyson Chicken which pays all of its employees, from the corporate farmer to the packers near slave wages. Do you think they [employees] have it any better?
There's a lot to be said when you look at the whole picture.
This is what they call a Depression. Lack of sufficient funds to maintain the economic system.
Almost every company or corporation have dialed back full time to 28 to 32 hours as the new full-time.
This is called redistribution of wealth. However, it is interesting to note that the very rich haven't kicked in nothing, so the middle class has become the new upper-poor class.
Here's a blip for you to read: http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post--young-men-earn-much-less-now-than-in-1973
No, the government does NOT mail a check to Wal-Mart. Your article never says or even hints it................that is just your POV

 

Thanks for buttoning up my argument air tight....

 

The economic dynamics have been thrown out of whack by the welfare programs that FDR originated; many of these corporations are paying for the government benefits that make it possible for people to live despite not making a "living wage." So in the end, the rich and corporations are paying for these people to live whether they actually have a "living wage" or not.

 

What? Don't you know that a common Fast Food joint tactic is to deliberately ensure < 40 hours to dodge Health care bene's? That's hardly a failure on your part... if the economy can't support you then its the economy that is failing.

Its completely circular- somebody brings up PT worker hardships, then someone else brings up how they are living out of their means, then someone brings up that the PTW's situation cannot support those assumptions, then someone points out that people who don't get ahead failed. then someone points out that the suggested path to success isn't viable due to PT worker hardships.

Its like clockwork

 

Well right, and if corporations paid for all the welfare paying that'd be dandy- but my tax dollars are going to keeping these low-skilled shamblers sucking air long enough for said corporations to derive benefit- If they are the ones reaping benefit from my tax dollar, I have the right to point it out tell the powers that be to change it.

Thats why I want an increase in wages- the corps can't use the fact that we're decent enough as a people to give a hand out to justify their ridiculously cheap labor. Its a defacto subsidy of the worst kind, because the persons that benefit most (corporations) aren't seen as the beneficiary.

Bottom line, since Corps benefit from the shamblers, they should be the ones to flip the shambler's bill, otherwise the gov should give ambitious shambler's an opportunity to succeed (affordable accessible training in viable fields) and let the others rot (as in no welfare for you you shambler you). And remove kids from shamblers homes and pay for them to go to good orphanages.

Heck (puts on foil hat) it may even be that the Corps want the welfare, since without it the shamblers would rise up and unionize- as it is now the're just well paid enough to live, but not so much that they are confident. Perfect cattle.

 

Everyone's situation is different as well. Try living with a family of 4 in NYC on $14,000 per year. Not gonna happen unless the government gives subsidies and then its coming out of the taxpayers wallets instead of the employers.

 

denied. Where does Wal-Mart get it's subsidy check? You indicated that Wal-Mart gets a check from the government. That's a lie. Wal Mart gets no such check.

 

That's not what I said, I said Walmart gets a subsidy, it's employees receive 6.2 billion in welfare and food stamps.
Walmart helps them sign up, it's a part of their Walmart pay package.
Which means Walmart saves money, which makes the Walton family (who never worked a day in their lives) so much wealthier.....

 

Wal-Mart gets no subsidy...................

 

it's all about jealousy of the Walton family. the "who never worked a day in their life" comment shows it. goober thinks risking their money, their managerial skills aren't as valuable as a cog in the maching shelf stocker.

 

OK, so having the government supplement your payroll with 6.2 billion dollars in welfare isn't a subsidy, except in a strictly economic sense.....

 

Some people will be as pedantic as they need to be to make their "points" it seems.

 

no, it's not..... the value of a cashier is xxx..... if the cashier has convinced you that she needs xxx+1, that's not on walmart at all. When a family of 4 can live on 14000/annually

(that's 7000 for two working adults supporting a kid each, that averages to 3$/hour roughly)


then a Walmart cashier can live off of 8$/hour.


http://www.businessinsider.com/family-of-four-live-well-on-just-14000-per-year-2014-4


but no good deed goes unpunished by the jealous.... if Walmart helps poor budgetting people out with how to get assistance, people accuse Walmart of using welfare to suppliment their wages

if they don't help poor budgeting people get assistance, people accuse them of not caring.


Either way, it doesn't change the value of a cashier

 

If wal-mart employees uses welfare to keep the employees from starving (and therefore being even worse employees) then I fail to see how this welfare doesn't benefit Wal-mart. Since I am paying (through taxes) for something that wal-mart is benefiting from, I want them to step up and pay enough so that an employee doesn't need assistance, so that my tax dollars can be placed elsewhere-

Like in my wallet for instance..

Just so I'm clear, your con raising minimum wage but for welfare?

 

if they are starving at walmart wages... then they are spending their money on non-necessities first


food
rent
bills (utilities and cell phone)
luxuries (cigerettes, alcohol, car payments)



the problem is, most working poor think

luxuries
bills
food
rent

is the order of importance..... that's not walmart's fault

 

it's only your version of lie................