It's in the hundreds. At least 15-20 a week since the end of May. Perfect example...yesterday evening I applied for one as an account manager for an O&G firm. Within 30 minutes, I got an email that said, "We regret to inform you that you have not been selected..." What the f***?
They make a basic logical argument that is based on research, statistics and numbers. I realize that what qualifies as "proof" in your mind is the "logical" train of thought put forth by a pundit, but even a very logical statement doesn't hold water when put up against research which shows that minimum wages help the economy, to say nothing about the people they help.
Nothing? No ideas bigtexxx? You have no clue? A highly intelligent and impartial observer like you should surely be able to identify some kind of root cause.
no need for a pundit. I asked a pretty simple question: 'what happens to a job whose value is $3 when the minimum wage is $5?' You, brantoli, and the paper have not answered this question. as far as what research papers show; they show everything, because a person can make numbers say whatever they want. http://americanactionforum.org/research/how-minimum-wage-increased-unemployment-and-reduced-job-creation-in-2013 observational science is usually pretty worthless.
^^ I guess in answer to your question, if the minimum wage is $5, and my work is only worth $3, then that entire industry collapses. Let's make it more realistic. The minimum wage is $5, my work is worth only $3, and say the cost of finding a new employee + training is $2, then nothing will happen and my salary will rise to $5, since going to find somebody else is more expensive than retaining the original person. See, that's what I meant by your simplified model. I have absolutely no idea if finding a new employee really costs that much, but the model you posit in your question is way too simplistic.
Employers don't hire people because it's cheap to do so. They hire because they need people to do the work. In your scenario a $3 job is still a necessity for the employer, that's why it exists in the first place. Either pay the $5 minimum wage or lose the job altogether. Hey, maybe the CEO could double cleaning the toilets.
No. That person just gets replaced by a robot or their job gets rolled up with another or the job is eliminated all together (think walmart greeter). A company will not pay you $5 if your skills are only worth $3. Not even if you try to force them. the necessity of the walmart greeter.
gosh, what event could have happened between 1945 and 1955 that would leave a growing number of retiring Americans, which would result in a ... wait for it... ...shrinking labor force?
did you rly need me to list more examples of jobs that are not a necessity? Your claim that 'a job is necessary and that's why it exists' was incorrect especially for low wage jobs. what does that have to do with the fact that we added so few jobs this month?
Yes, because under your logic, those jobs would have already been eliminated. Unless you think a lot of employers are currently enjoying hiring people for job positions that aren't needed just because. We have all seen employers prevent workers from gaining benefits by limiting their number of hours, but you're saying that they also hire positions that they don't need? I don't buy it. I get your simplistic logic that there is a value proposition, and to me the walmart greeter is one that I could see Walmart getting rid of if the wage becomes too high for them. In order for me to believe that this is the norm, you're going to have to give me more examples.
I think a company hires someone if the company thinks the value the worker adds will be more than the cost. That doesn't make the job a necessity. Not complicated. Or the walmart cashier gets replaced with self checkout because that job is not a necessity. Or the cart boy's job gets rolled up with the janitor's job, because that's not a necessity. Or walmart gets rid of the bakery department because the cost of the baker now costs too much (that job is not a necessity).
You're ignoring the residual effect of a mandatory increase in minimum wage and what it does to the economy. A $2 increase in wages will increase spending by a lot, helping the economy grow. It's about the net effect, you can't look at one side of the coin and make judgments on that alone. Again, residual effects. There are automated cashiers already, the technology is readily available and companies can go to a fully automated system but choose not to? Why? Because consumers prefer being checked out by someone else, it would hurt their bottom line if they go full self-checkout. I do think a future of automation is coming, and that day will be a net positive for society (I'd love workweeks to be trimmed for example, it'll lead to a happier populace), so long as corporate greed doesn't use automation against us. Good luck finding someone who will handle carts AND clean toilets for the minimum wage and do it well. Most certainly, Walmart would be left with stores full of dirty restrooms with carts everywhere (it would lead to less customers). If it was possible to consolidate the janitor's job and the cart boy's job efficiently, they would have done it already. Why would Walmart get rid of their bakery because they have to pay more to the workers? I don't think their margins are that thin to make a $2 increase in wages flip the bottom line such as that. EVEN if it did, then perhaps independent bakeries will get a lot more business and are forced to hire more. You cannot dumb down the economy into basic grade school-level thinking. You are making arguments that someone who just finished their first economics class in middle school could make.
that extra $2 comes form somewhere. where do you think it comes from? Because the cost of the cashier isn't high enough to warrant bringing in a machine.
I know where it comes from. That's why I said NET effect. Walmart has machine cashiers already, I said it hasn't been FULLY automated yet.
You must be new here. In fairness, that guy's post mimics short sighted powerless low rung management that squeezes the most out of the bottom for that blood from a blood out of a turnip increasing efficiency. Wal-Mart is not a mom and pop. They spend a lot more in organizational expenditures than the potential hike fit their lowest paid members. Automation even at their scale has a lot if upfront costs and also requires a skill set to maintain across all levels that they probably can't handle rght now. The consumer price hikes from increasing min wage aren't even steep for various reasons.
Yes, you asked the same simpleminded question that Fox pundits pose to their slack-jawed audience every day. The "logical" answer is that the job doesn't get created. The actual answer is more complicated, though there are some strong indications out there if you just turn off the television and expose yourself to actual research and facts. Of course, it is dramatically more difficult to make the numbers say what you want when your research is published in peer-reviewed journals rather than on an admittedly right-biased website. Go ahead, feel free to believe what the pundits and liars say, it isn't as if you are capable of critical thinking, if your willingness to believe that "a person can make numbers say whatever they want" is any indication. Based on my observation, the "science" that you subscribe to is completely worthless.
