4 ms·

Unfortunately, this hits companies from the wrong direction. Even if it incentives good behavior (which is debatable), the good behavior it incentivizes is to l

by jawns 6y ago

Unfortunately, this hits companies from the wrong direction. Even if it incentives good behavior (which is debatable), the good behavior it incentivizes is to lower one person's enormous compensation so that it's slightly less enormous but still quite large. What the law should promote is upward pressure on the lowest earners' compensation rather than downward pressure on the top earners' compensation. Minimum wage hike, for example. Much greater potential to improve the lives of the lowest-paid workers; businesses often threaten to compensate via layoffs but usually don't follow through, at least not enough to completely offset the change.

ineedasername 6y ago
Well it might help upward pressure (though I'm skeptical) because for every $1k more a year in median income, a CEO can pay themselves an addition $99,000 without running afoul of this law.
- chrismcb 6y ago
  You have to pay out more than $1000 though to raise the median $1000, unless your business has fewer than 100 people.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Oh, I'm not saying it would be cheap. The larger the company, the more expensive. But if a CEO can make an extra ~$100,000 of their own money by spending a few $million of someone else's money, at the same time that they can claim it's all some sort of virtuous act, then I think that's a deal some of them will make.
CWuestefeld 6y ago
Much greater potential to improve the lives of the lowest-paid workers; businesses often threaten to compensate via layoffs but usually don't follow through The effects come in through other means besides layoffs. The businesses still have to make up those expenses somehow, and non-monetary compensation is a primary target. If the government is telling businesses that it must provide greater monetary compensation, then they'll compensate by offering less non-monetary. This will happen through measures like eliminating training programs that could help employees get off that bottom rung; or eliminating flexible scheduling that, say, a single mom might need to attend to her kid's needs. Essentially, there are many form. Long term, there are more negative consequences to minimum wage than you can count through just disemployment effects, which are already keeping the very lowest rung of people unemployed.

by jawns 6y ago

ineedasername 6y ago

Well it might help upward pressure (though I'm skeptical) because for every $1k more a year in median income, a CEO can pay themselves an addition $99,000 without running afoul of this law.

chrismcb 6y ago
You have to pay out more than $1000 though to raise the median $1000, unless your business has fewer than 100 people.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Oh, I'm not saying it would be cheap. The larger the company, the more expensive. But if a CEO can make an extra ~$100,000 of their own money by spending a few $million of someone else's money, at the same time that they can claim it's all some sort of virtuous act, then I think that's a deal some of them will make.

CWuestefeld 6y ago

Much greater potential to improve the lives of the lowest-paid workers; businesses often threaten to compensate via layoffs but usually don't follow through The effects come in through other means besides layoffs. The businesses still have to make up those expenses somehow, and non-monetary compensation is a primary target. If the government is telling businesses that it must provide greater monetary compensation, then they'll compensate by offering less non-monetary. This will happen through measures like eliminating training programs that could help employees get off that bottom rung; or eliminating flexible scheduling that, say, a single mom might need to attend to her kid's needs. Essentially, there are many form. Long term, there are more negative consequences to minimum wage than you can count through just disemployment effects, which are already keeping the very lowest rung of people unemployed.