This is misleading at best, simply wrong at worst. Walmart has plenty of stores in locations with higher minimum wages - the problems with DC specifically is that ONLY Walmart would have them. Their competitors would be free to pay less, which is unfair to Walmart, and they are right to be pissed and/or walk away. But this is more of a level playing field issue and dumb law issue than a minimum wage issue. We don't know that Walmart would have walked away if everyone else had to pay the higher wage - because that actually benefits Walmart in that low-income people now have more income to spend at Walmart. Beyond that, bringing Walmart in doesn't necessarily mean more jobs, or even if it does, more net income. Walmart sells products that are already being sold in the community, so there's some replacement effect - if Walmart takes business, someone else is losing it and jobs are being lost elsewhere. The net effect is unclear - Walmart is more efficient with it's employees than a bunch of small companies, so they may sell the same amount of total goods with fewer employees. Even more unclear is the net pay differential - if Walmart creates more but lowering paying jobs, is the community better off? That again is a vague notion and can be debated both ways.
Fewer Walmarts doesn't necessarily mean fewer jobs. That is especially true if small businesses can fill the void. Then not only do we have jobs but more opportunities for business owners.
I'll requote what I said, and lay it out in baby steps. Of course, I am in favor of higher minimum wages. Your point is completely off by you painting it as black and white as you have, and even then, your question would be a fair question to ask, depending on your values. More wages, less jobs can be something more desirable than more jobs, less wages. But really, I'm telling you that your question is not so black and white and that in fact, you can have more jobs, and a better living wage, so---maybe you should be asking different questions, otherwise it's a bit too easy. I'm sorry I had to explain that to you, but I thought it was abundantly clear what side I was on (especially if you had read the paper, which I did not expect, but hey, one can always hope).
Wal-Mart generally pays more than minimum wage (though not by a lot, and you pretty much get an automatic raise within 90 days). Wal-Mart pays a lot in corporate taxes. They aren't GE.
Sure, that theory has limited use. That was the reasoning behind Ford's $5 thing ( NOT because "he paid the workers high wages so they could all buy cars" that a lot of people claim it is). Under a job with a high skillset and which requires significant training, it may be a good idea to pay workers more to reduce turnover. Neither fast food nor retail, the two main businesses which rely on minimum wage workers, qualify for either of those. Furthermore, I'd like to turn around and ask those who support a higher minimum wage to consider what I've been hammering throughout this very thread. Rather than artificially tampering around and screwing with the market and the middle class, it's better to create a government safety net instead. Glynch thinks that minimum wage should be able to put someone in the middle class. I don't agree. I don't even really think minimum wage by itself even needs to be enough for someone to meet the bare minimum. I do think that minimum wage+government subsidies should be enough.
those businesses have some of the highest turnover rates, and entail significant training costs on an aggregate basis. Curtailing that turnover is something that can and would be of economic benefit for all. In fact, those industries correlate perfectly with the economic theory, and fast food, for example, was the centerpiece of the 1993 study by Kreuger and Card that basically threw together the central notion that minimum wage increases can actually increase employment. This goes beyond even the Ford theory on wage raises for consumption, though that theory is very valid for the concept of aggregate consumption, even if the historical instance might be more nuanced. that's a whole different ballpark of prisoner's dilemma though, since of course, companies will always want other companies to raise wages to create more consumers for their products without raising wages themselves. Given how labor productivity has increased without a corresponding relative share of the profits, someone has to force industry's hand, for everybody's good.
I clearly said the law was targeted at Walmart in DC. Its competition is unionized, so it is paying the higher wages already.
It is slick, though probably just repetition on your part, that you argue that an increase for fast food workers as only coming from the middle class and not the rich. If anything, most of the raise would come from the pockets of the owners of say McDonalds, Burger King etc who are generally above middle class. Also, of course, the folks trying to subsist at the current fast food wages or lower are the ones who actually eat there the most. So you should get some satisfaction out of the fact that they are losing some of their to you distressingly anti-market boost in wages. Talking about the folks above the fast food workers, let's talk about other small businesses-- always cited by conservatives per their think tanks as a stand in for large corporations and their wealthy owners. The increased wages at the fast food restaurants will allow the workers to spend more at the mom and pop convenience store and the corner barbershop. If the increased wages were merely retained by huge fast food corporations or their stock holders, the money will not be spend as fast and the multiplier will not be as high. In addition if the article is correct that the raise would increase the cost of a Big Mac by .70 and the average middle class person ate four big Macs a week it would decrease their cost by $2.80. Bottom line study after study agrees raising the minimum wage to $11/hr to $12/hr will not hurt the economy and certainly not little guys like you and me. "Accordingly, a few weeks ago, over 100 economists at organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress to Boston University signed a petition in support of increasing the minimum wage. They present current research from well-established organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows there are no negative employment effects from minimum wage increases" http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rediscov...m-wage-myth-higher-wages-will-not-reduce-jobs
Actually there are studies that show Walmarts results in less jobs. Because they replace local workers with less / cheaper labor, and they suck money out of the community that would be spread locally. They also decrease property value and so people lose home equity. They are a net negative for any community. People think they are saving money on low prices buying inferior goods or deeper discounted commodities, but in reality, the price they pay for a weaker economy around them will be much higher.
Then replace them. McJobs add very little to a local economy. They are really more about giving a little spending cash to some highschool aged kids to save for prom while sucking the money out of the local economy. Fact is, the vast majority of the money goes to sit in corporate coffers in a far off distant place. You want to make your local economy stronger - which will reduce your properties taxes, improve your property value, and result in more employment - go to a farmers market and buy your food there. There's a reason for the whole buy local movement.
Well, yes, you are correct. That is, if you are assuming that the owners of said fast food restaurants won't jack up prices if they have to pay their workers more. Which is something that even Sweet Lou and everyone else on this topic has conceded will happen, though some of them dispute how much or declare it's a good thing because Keynes. And guess who shops at McDonald's? The middle class. And what I've been saying this whole freaking thread is that if you are concerned about multipliers, take the money from the corporations directly through taxes instead of dicking around with the minimum wage. Seriously, glynch, has what I've been proposing gotten through your skull, or are you still stuck in "Koj is a conservative so he is bad" mode?
Can you even envision in your wildest dreams getting a tax increase from or through the republican House? But a minimum wage increase might could possibly translate into votes, and votes from the valued minorities.
See, the problem with that is that no one wants to work in fast food or retail anyways, which is further augmented by the fact that most people who work in those areas are young people who are either working for the summer or simply stuck in a job until they move into an area. After all, even if McDonald's started paying their workers $12 an hour like you say they should, how many people would still want to work there for 3 or more years? Not many. They will move along at the first better opportunity, and so it's even dumber for McDonald's to throw huge resources at people who won't be there for very long. The only way to get around that is by charging exorbiant prices for workers, which is what the higher-class restaurants can do, but the very nature of business at McDonald's forbids that. If your response is "what's the difference between that and Ford", the difference is that a Ford job was viewed as a step towards middle class, towards working there for your entire life, not to mention that Ford demanded all sorts of **** which would NEVER fly under modern society ( you weren't allowed to drink period, you had to show yourself to be a patriotic American, etc.) Contrary to what glynch thinks, there is no law you can pass on this earth which will make working at McDonald's a middle class job. Because no one wants to work for McDonald's for their entire life. No. I don't think minimum wage is really any more popular than taxing the rich, and the responses from people like bigtexx and magnetik have made that perfectly clear. Besides, I'm talking policy, not politics. And minimum wage is bad policy which helps a small subset of the poor at the expense of everyone else slightly richer, as opposed to helping the poor as a whole at the expense of the rich. I know which policy is better.
just so you guys get some perspective the min wage in aus is around 9-10 dollars an hour for a minor (under 18) then it jumps to 15 for over 18
there's a higher cost of living in Australia vs. the US, so not the best comparison. Plus the US has a ton of cheap immigrant labor which drives wages down, as well.
I wouldn't mind a similar strategy in America, though that would seem to cause its own set of problems (like making it harder for unskilled adults to find low level jobs).
