4 ms·
>I'm of the opinion that far too many people on both sides of the issue argue their positions from ideology rather than empiricism, to our collective detriment.
by esaym 9y ago
>I'm of the opinion that far too many people on both sides of the issue argue their positions from ideology rather than empiricism, to our collective detriment.
And some of us just use math. If a company is barely profitable already, being required to pay more for labor probably won't work too well.
- CalChris 9y agoYou aren't using math. You're just cherry picking hypothetical data. McDonalds and Walmart are not barely profitable; they're extremely profitable.
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoIt's not about whether the company as a whole is profitable, it's about whether the value the company derives from employing a particular person is more than what they have to be paid. This is especially true of manual jobs that could be outsourced or automated for only slightly more than employees are currently paid.
- michaelmrose 9y agoThen the cost of automation will be less than the employee is paid very soon anyway
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoThat's little consolation to the person who loses their job today instead of years from now.
- chongli 9y agoIt's not about whether the company as a whole is profitable This is a great point. McDonald's and Walmart could paradoxically become more profitable after a minimum wage increase. How? By closing their least profitable stores. Perhaps those stores were just barely making a profit and the increase pushed them into the red. By closing these stores they increase their profitability despite recording a decrease in profit.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- austenallred 9y agoTiny changes at the margins absolutely drive decision making. It's not about "company x is making $y so they should have to pay $z." Companies will pay what they have to in order to get what they need. If that thing becomes more expensive they may look elsewhere.
- CalChris 9y agoCompany McDonalds made 1.47 per share (815M) shares so, yeah, they should have to pay a minimum wage. In Oakland CA where I live, that's currently $12.86 and McDonalds has not left town. I'm well aware of the microeconomics argument. It is basically ceteris paribus except that all things aren't equal. You're leaving out a lot of the beneficial aspects of a MW such as more money spent by the wage earners. You're also ignoring a tremendous amount of empirical experience with MWs around the world. In particular, Red States with low MWs, basically at the Federal minimum, aren't economic miracles. http://minimum-wage.insidegov.com/ http://minimum-wage.insidegov.com/
- austenallred 9y agoSurely you realize that McDonalds is a franchise? Therefore that company isn't paying the wages of workers, it's the local franchisee.
- yellowapple 9y agoI'm not sure about Wal-Mart, but I'm pretty sure McDonald's is franchised, meaning that it's very possible for an individual restaurant to be unprofitable even when McDonald's as a whole is raking in that Big Mac money. Even in non-franchised businesses, if the cost of a location exceeds its revenue, then that location is no longer profitable, and therefore could very well be shut down or at the very least downsized. Either way, people lose their jobs.
- CalChris 9y agoMcDonalds workers work for McDonalds. Some McDonalds are franchised and those workers still work for McDonalds. You seem very concerned about these low wage workers. That's quite admirable of you.
- esaym 9y agoI don't care about larger companies or companies that make more than $10 million a year. There is a real problem with money in America's smaller companies. Just because you want giant companies to pay $15+ an hour for labor is not fair to smaller companies.