6 ms·

not true and way too simplistic. If they can't get employed at all because the minimum wage is too high, the entire burden falls on those same state benefits.

stan_rogers 14y ago
That assumes that a business would be willing to rage quit. It either needs employees, or it doesn't. How many businesses do you think are carrying an excess of employees at the moment just because the wages are cheap? How many are supplying customers who woulld no longer decide they want the product/service because a small percentage of the total cost of delivery has increased my a relatively small amount, increasing prices very slightly? It is only those jobs that can be offshored at little or no (overall) cost that would be affected, barring ideology-over-sense zealots out to prove a point.
- crapshoot101 14y ago
  No, it assumes that in a flexible labor environment in the medium term, a business will adjust to the value of the worker. If the minimum wage goes up to $20 tomorrow, I may not let go of a lot of my temp employees today, but I will certainly do so in time. This isn't rocket science - this is economics 101. And I say this as someone who supports a gradual rise in the minimum wage (ie, a legislative solution that would link it to the CPI seems like the best way to take it out out of the hands of future legislators who want to play politics) - but the idea that there is no cost to increasing the minimum wage is silly. Also, the "small percent of the total cost of delivery" is is a red herring; labor cost as a portion of total delivery cost varies greatly according to industry. To use a silly example, if the minimum wage was increased to $30 tomorrow, you don't think McDonald's starts firing employees?
- pixl97 14y ago
  >How many businesses do you think are carrying an excess of employees at the moment just because the wages are cheap? More then you think. Increased insurance costs has done more to get rid of excess employees then minimum wage will. >It is only those jobs that can be offshored No, not only. Now that costs increase it makes more sense for the employer to take a harder look at replacing parts of the employment chain with software or automation. Where at one point employes kept people around for their flexibility it tips more in favor of machines (software or hardware) for there efficiency.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
But it is clear. Not this muddy twilight zone of part working part benefits. Anyway, this is not about the specific wage level, but that wages are the current means of transferring wealth generated from corporations and governments to the populace in an equitable fashion. There are other means of achieving the same end. Let's take the back-to-1950s approach - minimum wage too low? Fine, raise it to 30 bucks an hour and get all married women to stop working - their husbands can now bring home a sufficient wage, and the rise in unemployment is offset by the drop unpeople seeking work. Why is full employment an achievable goal when it's main purpose is to spread the wealth. How donwe spread the wealth - answer that and unemployment stops being a problem.

stan_rogers 14y ago

That assumes that a business would be willing to rage quit. It either needs employees, or it doesn't. How many businesses do you think are carrying an excess of employees at the moment just because the wages are cheap? How many are supplying customers who woulld no longer decide they want the product/service because a small percentage of the total cost of delivery has increased my a relatively small amount, increasing prices very slightly? It is only those jobs that can be offshored at little or no (overall) cost that would be affected, barring ideology-over-sense zealots out to prove a point.

crapshoot101 14y ago
No, it assumes that in a flexible labor environment in the medium term, a business will adjust to the value of the worker. If the minimum wage goes up to $20 tomorrow, I may not let go of a lot of my temp employees today, but I will certainly do so in time. This isn't rocket science - this is economics 101. And I say this as someone who supports a gradual rise in the minimum wage (ie, a legislative solution that would link it to the CPI seems like the best way to take it out out of the hands of future legislators who want to play politics) - but the idea that there is no cost to increasing the minimum wage is silly. Also, the "small percent of the total cost of delivery" is is a red herring; labor cost as a portion of total delivery cost varies greatly according to industry. To use a silly example, if the minimum wage was increased to $30 tomorrow, you don't think McDonald's starts firing employees?
pixl97 14y ago
>How many businesses do you think are carrying an excess of employees at the moment just because the wages are cheap? More then you think. Increased insurance costs has done more to get rid of excess employees then minimum wage will. >It is only those jobs that can be offshored No, not only. Now that costs increase it makes more sense for the employer to take a harder look at replacing parts of the employment chain with software or automation. Where at one point employes kept people around for their flexibility it tips more in favor of machines (software or hardware) for there efficiency.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

But it is clear. Not this muddy twilight zone of part working part benefits. Anyway, this is not about the specific wage level, but that wages are the current means of transferring wealth generated from corporations and governments to the populace in an equitable fashion. There are other means of achieving the same end. Let's take the back-to-1950s approach - minimum wage too low? Fine, raise it to 30 bucks an hour and get all married women to stop working - their husbands can now bring home a sufficient wage, and the rise in unemployment is offset by the drop unpeople seeking work. Why is full employment an achievable goal when it's main purpose is to spread the wealth. How donwe spread the wealth - answer that and unemployment stops being a problem.