You are assuming that every small business has a target market of minimum wage earners. I can't believe I'm even having this discussion, it's so ignorant. This is like Einstein trying to explain physics to Two Sandwiches Hamilton.
Forrest, you're assuming that big business can't afford to pay their employees a few more dollars per hour.
This discussion demonstrates why our economy is on the brink of destruction. I suggest you get out of debt. Save alot of money, put a large % in comodities and get a very secure job. A minimum wage is nice when you can borrow all the money you want. But the truth is we all eventually get what we deserve, not what we want.
Sucessful businesses pay employees based upon the value they contribute to the company's success. Government is the most unsuccessful business model on God's green earth.
Good point, all the major prosperous countries have sizable governments and sizable roles for them. Doesn't mean more government is better or government is better at all things.
Education and opportunity start at birth, not in high school. A black child born in the Fifth Ward is no less interested in learning or working hard than a white child born in Cinco Ranch. My personal observations of school in Spring Branch during the 80's was that most white kids had it much easier than minorities. All the white kids had to worry about was school.
Let's pretend that if everyone got more education everyone would have high wages. Let's also pretend that all the unskilled factory work, yard work, food service work, taking care of the old etc. would disappear or would only be done by childless young students who would only do this until they got their MBA's, PhD's and then became well paid. Just because it is true that you can take an individual low wage worker or a number of them and give them training and they can move to a high wage jobs does not mean that this can be done for everyone in an unskilled job who needs to support their family. Well, I guess we can keep with the present system, with low minimum wages, in which these workers often have to depend on food stamps and other government benefits to supplement their low wages.
the key to economic growth is and always will be increses in productivity since natural resources are pretty much explored in this country. So the long-term government policy should be aimed at finding ways to grow productivity which is beginning to fall flat after the positive impact of the IT revolution. Namely, productivity issue can be increased by: 1. Better education 2. Better health care reducing sick days 3. Improving the environment which improves productivity in the long-term 4. Greater Investment in research and technology Other things that would increase productivity is finding ways to reduce traffic and airline congestion - as delays lowers productivity. Investment in infrastructure as well. Reducing litigation and other inefficiencies. Of course, it's hard to do this because the net benefits may take 5 to 20 years to see - and that's usually beyond the term of most political leaders.
minimum wage jobs are just for the poor and stupid. In college I had to take minimum wage jobs to pay for minor expenses like books and pay day to day expenses. And you can't buy much on minimum wage either. Minimum wage is really so low that I think it's more to prevent gross exploitation of people, but paying someone minimum wage is already pretty much exploiting them.
MW jobs are also for teenagers. That's one of my big issues against a living wage. If teens earn that kind of money with menial jobs, they'll have even less incentive to invest time in classes and homework than they would to get their new ipod touch they bought with 2 weeks pay. If you can get by with these jobs, many at that age would probably bank on that fact if their grades need some improving to get into college. As has been mentioned in other topics, our education culture is a wreck, while at the same time media advertisers force stupidity and idol worship onto teens. I don't think the lessons of making an honest buck or money management is being passed along here, more likely so if they're living in a home worth less than what their parents owe.
New Orleans, LA: Economic Analysis of the New Orleans Minimum Wage Proposal - July, 1999 (Robert Pollin, Stephanie Luce, Mark Brenner, Univeristy of Massachusetts - Amherst) In preparation for expert testimony in a then-pending court case, economist Robert Pollin of University of Massachusetts - Amherst headed a team of researchers to conduct an unprecedented study on the potential impact of a proposal to raise the minimum wage in the city of New Orleans to one dollar above the federal minimum wage level (effectively $6.15 an hour). The research included an extensive survey of businesses in New Orleans, comprising almost a quarter of the employment of the entire New Orleans workforce. This is the best data we could have to predict the effect of the proposed increase on families and the economy of New Orleans. Costs: For the city's 12,682 firms, the costs of these raises would amount to an average of less than 1% of their operating budget (.9%). Many firms already pay a living wage and would not experience any direct cost increases as a result of this law. This cost is lower for smaller firms, with less than 50 employees, averaging .5% of the average firm's operating budget. Industries accounting for 86% of production and 79% of employment in New Orleans would face cost increases of less than one percent due to the minimum wage increase. The two industries that would face the largest average increases are the restaurant industry (2.2%), and hotels (1.7%). In these two industries, firms compete almost completely with other businesses within New Orleans, who would also face the same increases. Because the increased costs per firm are low, the overwhelming majority of firms will not lay off workers or relocate outside of New Orleans. Instead, most firms will either: 1. Raise prices by a small amount and pass on the added costs to consumers; 2. Raise productivity in the firm, which should occur in any case since the wage increases will encourage lower turnover and absenteeism, and thus lower hiring, training and supervisory costs; and/or 3. Allow that low wage workers will receive a slightly larger share of the firm's total income. Benefits: The policy will bring significant, if modest, gains to low-wage working people and their families. For the average low-wage working family, income before taxes and subsidies (e.g. Food Stamps and Earned Income Credit) will rise by 11.8%. Low-wage workers will benefit through the dignity of earning a higher share of their livelihood and thus becoming less dependent on government subsidies. Reliance on Food Stamps and Earned Income Tax Credit will fall as actual earned income of low-wage workers and their families rises. These gains will be on the order of $15-20 million dollars to the federal government -- roughly what it spends annually on the Head Start program in Orleans Parish. Even these modest gains are important to the City of New Orleans, given that as much as 40% of its population is poor (earning less than 150% of the poverty line). It is estimated that 47,000 workers would receive the mandated wage increase. The average yearly increase among these workers would be $1,003. An additional 27,000 could receive raises through a so-called "ripple effect" among workers who are in roughly the same pay range as minimum wage workers. The policy will benefit the retail stores operating in the city's low-income neighborhoods, as residents of these neighborhoods, with higher incomes, will increase local spending that should amount to roughly a 2.7% increase in an average low-income neighborhood. Conclusions: Based on the data, there is virtually no incentive for firms to relocate outside the city or decide against moving to New Orleans, nor will the proposed increase cause employment losses. These conclusion are drawn from both the extensive evidence on the impact of minimum wage increases on relocation and employment at the state and national level and because the cost increases due to this increase will be so low that firms will find it most cost effective to absorb these costs through small price increases, productivity, or income distribution changes, rather than incurring the large expenses associated with laying off workers or relocation. The proposal is a relatively efficient policy initiative in that the primary benefits of the policy would be concentrated among low-wage workers, their families, and neighborhoods, while its costs would be readily and widely diffused among the city's businesses, consumers, and government. The benefits of the minimum wage increase, especially to low-wage working families, but also to retail store owners in low-income neighborhoods and the federal government, significantly outweigh the costs of the policy. http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/index.php?id=1953
Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too - Judge Smails Pay should be determined by the value of the job to society. The garbage truck worker who jogs 5 miles a day to take your refuse away to the landfill is worth more than the IT manager that spends all day on Clutchfans. What about the guy that has to go down in the sewer lift station in the ***** and used condoms to change out a pump blade. If he doesen't do it, crap backs up into your house; but he makes 10 times less than the lawyer who sits in his $900 ergonomic chair with an airconditioned 10th story view cut and pasting boiler plate and surfing p*rn. People typically b**** about road crews where 1 guy is in the hole and 4 guys are standing around; if you've ever done that kind of work you'd know about 10 minutes of it an hour is all a person can really handle.
I was refering to successful business. Efficient production of quality products and services yielding employee satisfaction, customer commitment and profit. I am grateful for good government.
If everyone got an education, then the value of that education drops; there is no simple answer. However spending money you don't have is never a good idea.
I disagree. The value of the education doesn't drop. The competitive edge of it in the job market might drop. But there are better or at least equally good reasons to get an education that have nothing to do with getting a better job. though in a way my argument is maybe even lends itself more to the idea of only those who want an education for education's sake getting one, and everyone else who wants to get a good job should go to trade school.
I'm sure I would be if I ever saw an example of it. I kid, I kid. I think my city does a great job of providing me with water, taking my trash, and planting flowers along the side of the road.
While I understand that most of the lower paying jobs are very important (and are tremendous physical labor), economically speaking, jobs generally pay based (partly) on the number of people that can do the job. Refgal's daughter works at Walgreen's. She is in high school. There are an unending multitude of people that are able to do the job. Consequently, it doesn't pay very well. Conversely, if she had an MD and a master's in forensics, she could work as a ME, and make a six figure salary. This is because the qualified applicant pool for being a ME is much smaller than that for being a cashier at Walgreen's.
